I don't know how aggressively they pursue perjury charges in these instances, but they do make you swear in. I had no intention of lying, and every intention of being fair when I sat on a jury last year.
How'd I miss this story when it happened?
To randomly shoot some guys dog in Texas is really rollin the dice, but to shoot that guy's dog? They are lucky to be alive.
That's the main question right there.
Prosecutor: If we prove all the elements of murder, beyond a reasonable doubt, and disproved self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, would you vote to convict?
Prospective (honest jury nullification group member) juror : Maybe. If I think it is consistent with my moral code.
Probably not getting on the jury. We - attorneys, judges, and society - want jurors who follow the law. Jury trials are unpredictable enough already. It doesn't help when there are trump cards out there that we just don't know about.
Can you honestly say that you would feel comfortable with certain INGO members on a jury involving defendants from certain cultures?
Cool. Criminal or civil?
Criminal. It was a rape, battery and criminal confinement case. Very interesting, but I lost some sleep over it. Partly because of the knowledge of what he had done, and partly because of the weight of knowing you had found him guilty and he was going away for a long time. We made the right decision, but it is still not one made lightly.
I, for one, would refuse to paint myself into a corner. Given that the questioning is under oath, how does it work out if you, as a juror, end up doing something other than what you declare when questioned? What it if turns out that our murderer is technically guilty, but multiple credible witnesses turn up that he acted to stop an impending action that would be defense had he been johnny on the spot when it happened (like, what if three credible witnesses say the decedent was planning in the short term future to rape the defendant's daughter and all were convinced it was genuine and not Anheuser-Busch talk)? While this may not be the best example, it does bring me back to the fundamental problem: How do you account for the possibility of, well, unexpected elements? I have found that few things in life are as black and white as we would like for them to be. How do you effectively tell the prosecutor or defense attorney either one that you are there to establish the truth of what happened and apply justice properly, not to be a rubber stamp?
I, for one, would refuse to paint myself into a corner. Given that the questioning is under oath, how does it work out if you, as a juror, end up doing something other than what you declare when questioned?
That sounds to me like the prosecutor failed to disprove the "defense of another" part of self defense. As a juror, it would be "technically" ok to vote to acquit based on that defense.What it if turns out that our murderer is technically guilty, but multiple credible witnesses turn up that he acted to stop an impending action that would be defense had he been johnny on the spot when it happened (like, what if three credible witnesses say the decedent was planning in the short term future to rape the defendant's daughter and all were convinced it was genuine and not Anheuser-Busch talk)?
It basically boils down to this question: would you follow the law, as instructed to you by the judge?While this may not be the best example, it does bring me back to the fundamental problem: How do you account for the possibility of, well, unexpected elements? I have found that few things in life are as black and white as we would like for them to be. How do you effectively tell the prosecutor or defense attorney either one that you are there to establish the truth of what happened and apply justice properly, not to be a rubber stamp?
Trial lawyers study for years on how to ask questions.
It basically boils down to this question: would you follow the law, as instructed to you by the judge?
Simple question. The more complicated the answer, the more difficult it is to be on a real jury.
It sounds like we are pretty well on the same page in our thinking, although this raises an issue: My take on it is that my job is to follow the law as written in the IC, and I would expect to have it available to me during the process such that I could do my own homework.
Well, it has been WAY too long since I was in that world to answer definitively. I think the caselaw was, first, that it was up to the judge whether to allow the code back in the deliberation room. Wait. Let me back up. The jury instructions will contain the code sections of the charges (somewhat edited for clarity, depending on the facts of the case). So, those will go back.
The risk in allowing the entire IC is that jurors will get distracted or focus on things that were not part of the trial. For instance, the idea of lesser-includeds is tricky.
Let's say there's a rape case. The prosecutor believes it was rape and doesn't offer any plea to a lesser crime, like sexual battery. The defendant, who might've taken a plea like that, absolutely doesn't think it was rape. So, both sides agree that there should be no instruction on sexual battery; it becomes a "winner take all" deal. Either convicted of rape or acquitted. The jury instructions would seem like they were in a vacuum, as if the crime of sexual battery didn't even exist.
But, if we sent the entire IC back (or the chapter that covers these particular crimes) a jury might think the facts are more like sexual battery than rape, or any one of the other crimes described in statute. It introduces a big bucket of mud into a pool that is already muddy.
Judges will not allow the criminal code in the jury room. It is reversible error.
Judges will not allow the criminal code in the jury room. It is reversible error. The Judge determines the law which means that the law the judge determines is at issue is made part of jury instructions and that is all (along with the evidence and their notes) the jury gets. Both parties submit proposed jury instructions and there are arguments about what the jury should be instructed in.
BTW- I had a trial last year where a juror answered that she knew nothing about my client, had no preconceived notions, could be fair an unbiased, would not talk about the case to anyone and would not do outside research....then the next morning, she comes in and tells the bailiff that she believes my client is responsible for her grandmother's death and that a lawsuit is being pursued. She was dismissed, but nothing more.
Ok. Actual justice by thinking jurors who actually know what the law says is not accepted, and trial by jury is a mere facade put over the top of what amounts to chess-playing and deal making between the prosecution, defense, and judge. Nice.
Ok. Actual justice by thinking jurors who actually know what the law says is not accepted, and trial by jury is a mere facade put over the top of what amounts to chess-playing and deal making between the prosecution, defense, and judge. Nice.