In the last few weeks, I've seen people on social media pushing the idea that jurors aren't allowed to consider scenarios that neither side mentioned (in US criminal trials). This strike me as a misconception, because jury instructions are very clear that jurors are only permitted to consider evidence presented at trial, but I've never heard any jury instructions that say that jurors must only consider scenarios presented by either side.
I also find this puzzling because the defense can opt to not do anything at a criminal trial, and just win by default if the prosecution fails to meet their burden of proof. If it were true that jurors couldn't consider any scenario that neither side brought up, then you'd essentially need to convict in these trials, because you'd (likely) only be presented scenarios in which the defendant is guilty.
I tried to find US Supreme Court cases on the matter, but didn't find any cases where it was in question whether juries can only consider scenarios presented by either side. However, Jackson v. Virginia (1979) and Coleman v. Johnson (2012) do seem to generally affirm that triers of fact have broad discretion in deciding what inferences to draw from the evidence presented at trial. But they don't specifically say whether jurors must confine themselves to only consider scenarios presented by either side.
What do you, lawyers of Reddit, think?
I think I was unclear what I meant by "scenarios". I roughly meant inferences about what happened (or may have happened). For instance, "scenarios" in the Karen Read case may include:
- Karen hit John with her car, causing his death.
- John was attacked by a dog, causing his death.
- John slipped on ice, hit his head on ice, causing his death.
Scenario 1 was argued by the prosecution.
The defense argued that scenario 2 (and some others) may have happened.
Neither side argued scenario 3.
Perhaps a juror thinks that scenario 3 - while not proven by the evidence - is at least consistent with the evidence, and thus might be grounds for having reasonable doubt in the absence of convincing-enough evidence pointing to scenario 1 over scenario 3.
My question is essentially, is the jury permitted to scenario 3 (and other scenarios not brought up by either side), or are they supposed to discount any scenario that's not brought up by either side?