Disregard of Scientific Proof by Juries
Manly W. Mumford · Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1931-1951) · 1950
Manly MumfordOur judicial system contains one practice which has drawn much criticism from persons trained in scientific fields.It accepts jury verdicts which are contrary to scientifically established facts. 1 Many scientists argue that by permitting jurors such complete freedom we countenance capricious obstructions to the orderly administration of justice. 2 This view is based upon a generally accepted theory that the proper function of a jury is to find the facts as rational men would be led to believe by the evidence; and that having reached this finding, the jury should apply the rules of law submitted by the judge and produce a simple yes-or-no answer. 8 That juries do not always behave in such an orderly, scientific manner however, is quite apparent.They often find the facts to be those which will produce the verdict which they desire.Unless the verdict in a civil case is too outrageous, courts permit it to stand in the face of practical scientific certainty. 4Such a practice is defended by the courts upon the theory that the jury may have believed that the witnesses were lying, or that the scientific tests were carelessly made.However, both of these arguments are strained when there is no evidence to impeach the credibility of the witnesses or to suggest that their tests were improperly conducted. What is the Role of the Jury?What should a jury do in reaching a verdict in any case?The answer must rest between two extremes: (1) Considering nothing but the evidence,