THE ORIGIN OF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD AND APPLICATION IN UNITED STATES CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL LAW*

Kıta Avrupası Hukukunu kullanan ülkelerin ceza ve ceza usul hukukunda çok büyük farklar yoktur, hatta bu Anglo-Sakson Hukukunu kullanan ülkeler içinde söylenebilir. Benzerliklere rağmen gerçeği ortaya çıkarma konusunda Birleşik Devletler ceza usulü, Türk ceza usulünden farklıdır. Makul şüphenin ötesinde standardı, Amerikan ceza usulü sisteminde mâhkumiyet kararı vermek için çok önemlidir. Yaygın bir özdeyiş, bir masumu yanlışlıkla mâhkum etmektense on suçluyu serbest bırakmak daha iyidir demektedir. Bu sosyal inanış, bir sanığın mâhkum edilmesi için makul şüphenin ötesinde standardına ulaşma şartına gizlenmiştir. Birleşik Devletlerde, makul şüphenin ötesinde standardı hâkimin jüriyi bilgilendirmesinin bir parçasıdır ve hâkimler jüriye karara nasıl ulaşacaklarını ve bundan nasıl emin olmaları gerektiğini söylerler. Ancak, standardın anlamını açıklamak ve uygulamanın çok zor olduğu değerlendirilmektedir. Bu bağlamda; makalenin amacı, makul şüphenin ötesinde standardı hakkında bilgi vermek ve Birleşik Devletler Ceza Usul Hukukundaki uygulamasını incelemektir. Bunun yanında konuyla ilgili çalışmayı daha da genişleterek sürdürmek isteyen araştırmacılara da bir bakış açısı yaratmak amaçlanmaktadır.

Makul Şüphenin Ötesinde Standardının Kaynağı ve Birleşik Devletler Ceza Usul Hukukunda Uygulaması

Criminal law and criminal procedural law do not differ greatly from that of other civil law countries or even common law countries. Even though there are similarities, the United States criminal procedure is different from Turkish criminal procedure for the job of ascertaining the truth. The beyond reasonable doubt standard is very important for giving a verdict of guilty in the American scheme of criminal procedure. A common aphorism states that it is better to have ten guilty people go free than to have one innocent person erroneously convicted. This intrinsic societal belief has been hidden in the requirement that a criminal defendant be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt to be convicted. In the United States, the standard of beyond reasonable doubt is part of a judges instruction to juries, and judges tell jurors about how to arrive at their verdict and how certain they must be about it. It is assessed that interpreting and applying this standard is very diffucult. In this context, this articles aim is to give information on the beyond a reasonable doubt standad, and to examine application in the United States Criminal Procedure Law. Besides this, the objective of writing this article is to create a perspective for researchers who want to continue expanding this work further.

___

Allen, Ronald J., A Reconceptualization of Civil Trials, Boston University Law Review, Y.1986, V.66, I.3, p.401-438.

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN- 1992-7.pd, access date 12.2.2013.

Aslan, Yasin, Transformation of Turkish Criminal Law from the Ottoman-Islamic Law to the Civil Law Tradition, Ankara Bar Review, Y.2009, V.2, I.2, p.92-98.

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 533 (1979), http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/441/520/case.htm, access date 13.2.2013.

Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=295&inv ol=78, access date 10.2.2013.

Caenegem, Willian Van, Advantages and Disadvanteges of the Adversarial System in Criminal Procedings, Bond University Law Papers, 1.1.1999, p.79, http://epublications.bond.edu.au/law_pubs/224, access date 14.2.2013.

Cage v. Louisiana 498 U.S. 39 (1990), http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/498/39/, access date 14.2.2012. Chambers, Henry L., Reasonable Certainty and Reasonable Doubt, Marquette Law Review, Y.1998, V.81, I.3, p.655-704.

Cohen, Jessica N., The Reasonable Doubt Jury Instruction Giving Meaning to a Critical Concept, American Journal of Criminal Law, Y.1995, V.22, I.3, p.677-702.

Cole, George F. & Frankowski Stanislaw J. & Gertz, Marc G. (Editors), Major Criminal Justice System-A Comparative Survey, Second Edition, 1987.

Exum, Jelani Jefferson, The Essence of the Rules:A Comparison of Turkish and U.S. Criminal Procedure, http://www.johnmarshall.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/Yenisey-Comparative-Crim-ProcedureSyllabus-and-Readings.pdf, access date 9.2.2013.

Exum, Jelani Jefferson, Turkish Criminal Procedure Code (TCPC), Beta, İstanbul, 2009.

Federal Judicial Center, Pattern Criminal Jurry instructions (1988). Frase, Richard S. & Thomas Weigand, German Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform: Similar Problems, Better Solutions?, Boston College Internetional Comparative Law Review, Y.1995, V.18, I.2, p.317-360.

Freccero, Stephen P., An Introduction to the New Italian Criminal Procedure, American Journal of Criminal Law, Y.1994, V.21, N.3, p.345-384.

Gabriel, Henry D. & Barski, Katherine A., Reasonable Doubt Jury Instructions:The Supreme Court Struggles to Live by Its Principles, Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development, Y.1995, V.11, I.1, p.73-87.

Giles v. Maryland, 386 U.S. 66, 98 (1967).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol =386&invol=66, access date 10.2.2013. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 363 (1970), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=397 &invol=358, access date 13.2.2013.

LaFave, Wayne R. & Israel, Jerold H. & King, Nancy J., Criminal Procedure, second edition, Hornbook Series, 1999.

Langbein, John H., Comparative Criminal Procedure: Germany, West Group, 1977.

Laufer, William S., The Rhetoric of Innocence, Washington Law Review, Y.1995, V.70, I.2, p.329-422.

Mirabella, Julia Grace, Scales of Justice: Assessing Italian Criminal Procedure Through the Amanda Knox Trial, Boston University International Law Journal, http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/international/vol ume30n1/documents/note_mirabella.pdf, access date 21.2.2013.

Mulrine, Thomas V., Reasonable Doubt: How in the World is It Defined, American University International Law Review, Y.1997, V.12, I.2, p.195-225.

Newman, Jon O., Madison Lecture: Beyond Reasonable Doubt, New York University Law Review, Y.1993, V.68, p.979-1002. Nyrop, Richard F., Turkey, a Country Study, Area Handbook Series, 1980.

OReilly, Gregory W., England Limits the Right to Silence and Moves Towards an Inquisitorial System of Justice, Journal of Criminal Science and Criminology, Y.1994, V.85, I.2, p.402-452.

Pannick, David, Jurors Who Are in Reasonable Doubt, The Times (London), Jan. 17, 1995, available in Lexis, News Library, access date 12.2.2013.

Sandoval v. California 311 U.S. 1 (1994), https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/511/511.US.1.92-9049.92- 8894.html, access date 14.2.2012.

Shapiro, Barbara J., Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Probable Cause, University of California Press, London England, 1991.

Shapiro, Barbara J., To a Moral Certainty: Theories of Knowledge and Anglo-American Juries 1600-1850, Hastings Law Journal, Y.1986, V.38, p.153-193.

Stacy, Tom & Dayton, Kim, Rethinking Harmless Constitutional Error, Columbia Law Review, Y.1988, V.88, I.1, p.79-143.

The trial court instruction for the jury about reasonable doubt in New York State, http://www.nycourts.gov/cji/1- General/CJI2d.Presumption.Burden.Reasonable_Doubt.pdf, access date 14.2.2013.

Victor v. Nebraska 511 U.S. 1 (1994), https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/511/511.US.1.92-9049.92- 8894.html, access date 14.2.2013.

Whitman, James Q., The Origins Of Reasonable Doubt, Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship Series, 3.1.2005.