Racial Differences in Interpretations of Standards of Proof and Jury Impartiality in the U.S. Criminal Justice System

Abstract This study explores racial differences in public perceptions of key standards of proof, specifically “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “preponderance of the evidence,” as well as evaluations of impartiality toward juries with varying racial compositions in the U.S. criminal justice system. Using data from 1,193 respondents, we find that White and Black respondents differ in their interpretations of guilt and liability: Black respondents generally apply stricter qualitative views of “beyond a reasonable doubt” and more lenient qualitative interpretations of “preponderance of the evidence,” and lower quantitative thresholds than White respondents for both standards. Black respondents also expressed greater confidence in the impartiality of racially diverse and all-Black juries than in all-White juries. These patterns suggest that White and Black respondents perceive standards of proof and jury impartiality through distinct racial lenses.