Gut Feeling

So, after receiving incredibly in depth and detailed jury instructions, our jury gave me this question to ask the judge.

"Please explain the difference between preponderance of the evidence, burden of proof, and gut feeling."

Ok, first of all, preponderance of the evidence and burden of proof were already clearly defined in the jury instructions, of which they had a copy. But, really, "gut feeling"?

As I handed the question to the judge, he looked at me with a perplexed look. "Really? Gut feeling?" He sat for a couple seconds, looked at it, looked at me, then said, "Well, what do you think?"

I wanted to say, "My gut feeling tells me the Plaintiff is a bitch and the jury doesn't know how to separate their feelings from their ability to form logical opinions based on facts presented in evidence as is their duty according to the law." However, because he was in the middle of a magistrate's meeting, I instead responded, "Well, the only way gut feeling would factor in is in testing credibility."

Then, I thought about it. You know, we do have to use gut feeling a lot in determining what is fact and what is not fact. Who's to say what makes one thing a fact? To be honest, most things we accept as "fact" are truly based on some opinion--some exercise of our gut to tell us what is true or right and what is not. So, I guess, as impartial as law is supposed to be, jurors have to use their gut feelings a little more than in testing credibility of witnesses because everything every witness says can be incredibly biased or tainted and because every statement, whether the witness is credible or not, can come from a point of view which strongly alters a case. Isn't that a scary thought that gut feeling is used so much to determine justice? Yes, the juror's job is to weigh only the evidence presented to them. However, in doing that, the only real measure of the evidence is that juror's gut feeling/moral compass/point of reference.

Well, I guess I still could have said that I thought the Plaintiff was a Bitch.