Jury's Disbelief Of Evidence Essay

Far from embracing an “epistemic” confusion (category mistake?), the Missouri Supreme Court simply recognized in Jackson what many courts have long known: a jury’s disbelief of evidence can itself be evidence. “Where an unresolved factual dispute exists” – which is the norm in criminal trials – “demeanor evidence is a significant factor in adjudging credibility. And questions of credibility, of course, are basic to resolution of conflicts in testimony.”13 As Judge Learned Hand observed, “the carriage, behavior, bearing, manner and appearance of a witness – in short, his ‘demeanor’ – is a part of the evidence.”14 Demeanor “evidence may satisfy the tribunal, not only that the witness’ testimony is not true, but that the truth is the opposite of his story; for the denial of one, who has a motive to deny, may be uttered with such hesitation, discomfort, arrogance or defiance, as to give assurance that he is fabricating, and that, if he is, there is no alternative but to assume the truth of what he denies.”15 Simply put, it is no solecism to say that a jury’s right to disbelieve (some or all of) the State’s evidence is a basis in the evidence for acquitting the accused of one offense and convicting of another offense.

Since Missouri and federal case law …show more content…
Notably absent from his article, though, is any discussion by Mr. Hunt of the untoward consequences that will flow from Jackson. The Missouri Supreme Court did not think there would be any, rhetorically asking, “Where is the harm?”20 If a reasonable jury believes the accused is guilty of the charged (greater) offense, it will find the accused guilt of that offense, whether instructed on a lesser included offense or not.21 (That’s the same (harmless error) argument that the State used to make, pre-Jackson, to explain away any erroneous failure to instruct