jury judge
Judge to jury instruction in shooting of Colten Boushie case
<p>I was told that with the following instructions the judge asked the jurors to acquit Mr. Stanley. Is that so?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You must not find Gerald Stanley guilty unless you are sure he is
guilty. Even if you believe that Mr. Stanley is probably guilty or
likely guilty, that is not sufficient. In those circumstances, you
must give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Stanley and find him not
guilty because the Crown has failed to satisfy you of his guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>If you have a reasonable doubt
about Mr. Stanley's guilt arising from the evidence, the absence of
the evidence, or the credibility or the reliability of one or more of
the witnesses then you must find him not guilty. In short, the
presumption of innocence applies at the beginning and continues
throughout the trial, unless you are satisfied after considering the
whole of the evidence that the Crown has displaced the presumption of
innocence by proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Colten_Boushie" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Shooting of Colten Boushie</a> and <a href="https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/full-transcript-of-judges-instructions-to-colten-boushie-jury-put-yourself-in-a-jurors-shoes" rel="nofollow noreferrer">full transcript of the instructions</a>.</p>

<h2>No</h2>

<p>They look like pretty standard jury instructions to me. </p>

<p>The only odd bit is “sure he is guilty” - that’s not what “beyond reasonable doubt means” and, at least in Australia, judges don’t tell jurors what it means, that’s one of the things they have to decide for themselves. However, in context, where the term “reasonable doubt” is clearly used latter, it’s probably ok.</p>

<p>Look in <a href="https://cjc-ccm.ca/cmslib/general/jury-instructions/Final/NCJI-Jury-Instructions-Final-E.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this document</a>, the pattern jury instructions from the Canadian National Judicial Council, at p. 13 for the instructions pertaining to "reasonable doubt", starting with para 4. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Now what does the expression “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean? A
  reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It is not
  based on sympathy for or prejudice against anyone involved in the
  proceedings. Rather, it is based on reason and common sense. It is a
  doubt that arises logically from the evidence or from an absence of
  evidence. It is virtually impossible to prove anything to an absolute
  certainty, and the Crown is not required to do so. Such a standard
  would be impossibly high. However, the standard of proof beyond a
  reasonable doubt falls much closer to absolute certainty than to
  probable guilt. You must not find NOA guilty unless you are sure s/he
  is guilty. Even if you believe that NOA is probably guilty or likely
  guilty, that is not sufficient. In those circumstances, you must give
  the benefit of the doubt to NOA and find him/her not guilty because
  the Crown has failed to satisfy you of his/her guilt beyond a
  reasonable doubt.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is the judge's instruction, verbatim, with appropriate names and pronouns inserted. This is the standard explanation of "reasonable doubt" in Canada.</p>
