Colorado Victim Might Go To Jail

[ajeandy]

While he may have not done the legal thing, he definitely did the RIGHT thing...Killed a repeat offender who was going to continue to victimize people. I'm not saying that I would have done what he did. We think it's ok to let criminals to continue committing crimes. Should violent criminals be met with this type of resistance every time, we might actually see a change.

 

[Woobie]

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.

This is quite similar to the scenario I was in. The jury instructions, our notes, and applicable law were all in a binder. This was all we were allowed to have.

The prosecution did a good job proving the events, despite the incredibly lackluster handling of the case by the New Castle PD. The thing that sent us into 6 hours of deliberation was the prosecutor's "To Wit." The whole thing was charged "with a deadly weapon", and no lesser charge was up for consideration. The evidence on the knife was just not there. The detective had walked into the house a week after the crime and pulled a washed knife out of the butcher block. No prints, and if there had been, the perpetrator had been livig there anyway.

Long story short, the guy was several inches taller and 100 pounds heavier. He had beaten her half to death. We came to the realization (with no help from outside the deliberation room) that he was the deadly weapon, and that the "to wit" was not an essential element of the charge. That sounds like kindergarten stuff to you lawyers, I'm sure. But it took us hours to realize that. We all knew he did it, and didn't want to let him walk, but there was no evidence of a knife. The judge confirmed we had been correct in making that judgement call. But it wasn't obvious at the time.

 

[IndyDave1776]

This is going to sound elitist, but accurate statements sometimes do.

In my first 15 minutes on INGO, it was forever confirmed in my mind that the average citizen is not competent to determine what law applies or how to interpret it. We can jaw back and forth about "that's not the way it should be." I won't disagree, but we must deal in reality.

There are multiple levels of review to determine if the proper law was given. The idea that a jury could page around the code and figure out what the defendant is guilty of if not the charged crime is fraught with due process problems.

Back in the dark ages when I worked for the Department of Correction, I was having one of those times when I was just fed up at the point of catching an inmate smoking in a non-smoking area. I did something fitting for the predictable maturity level of my youth (which got laughed off by the screening officer reviewing the write-up) and wrote the inmate for a class A unauthorized fire (which was technically true) rather than a class D violation of any institutional rule. By extension, I am expected to be a good little bobble-head and vote guilty on something analogous if it is proven that the event did in fact take place?

On one trial in Lake County Superior Court, the judge instructed us not to nullify and to deliberate only according to his instructions.

There could have been suspicion of an illegal search.

And even nicer, we are expected to be good little rubber stamps even in the event of constitutional violations?

Why the Hell do we even have juries other than to make a very thin pretense of following the constitutional requirement for having them? How can a good decision be formed out of court-enforced ignorance? How can truth be derived from a manufactured illusion?

I will not argue that given the quality of the average person you likely deal with, there are plenty of practical problems. Maybe the better solution would be to have an uninvolved lawyer or two available to the jury for guidance with addressing the actual law. It would be a hell of a lot more fair than preemptively putting on the blinders and then telling the jurors that they are prohibited from acting on anything but the orders the judge gives them. You can guarantee the outcome every time if you stack the deck correctly, which is exactly what is being done.

 

[T.Lex]

This is quite similar to the scenario I was in. The jury instructions, our notes, and applicable law were all in a binder. This was all we were allowed to have.

The prosecution did a good job proving the events, despite the incredibly lackluster handling of the case by the New Castle PD. The thing that sent us into 6 hours of deliberation was the prosecutor's "To Wit." The whole thing was charged "with a deadly weapon", and no lesser charge was up for consideration. The evidence on the knife was just not there. The detective had walked into the house a week after the crime and pulled a washed knife out of the butcher block. No prints, and if there had been, the perpetrator had been livig there anyway.

Long story short, the guy was several inches taller and 100 pounds heavier. He had beaten her half to death. We came to the realization (with no help from outside the deliberation room) that he was the deadly weapon, and that the "to wit" was not an essential element of the charge. That sounds like kindergarten stuff to you lawyers, I'm sure. But it took us hours to realize that. We all knew he did it, and didn't want to let him walk, but there was no evidence of a knife. The judge confirmed we had been correct in making that judgement call. But it wasn't obvious at the time.

First, thank you for sharing your experience. Most attorneys I know find this stuff fascinating - and not 'kindergarten stuff' at all. Partly because we rarely get much feedback from inside the deliberation room.

Second, you don't have to talk about it at all, so I appreciate what you are willing to share.

I gotta ask, though, in the Information (the "To wit" document), did the document state a knife was involved, that it was the deadly weapon? If not, that is a glaring omission. If it did say "knife" but the victim didn't testify about a knife being involved, then it shouldn't have been charged that way.

 

[T.Lex]

How can truth be derived from a manufactured illusion?

Wait, is this turning into a religious thread?

Maybe the better solution would be to have an uninvolved lawyer or two available to the jury for guidance with addressing the actual law.

Good news: juries can - and do - send notes to the judge asking for clarification. When that happens, all the attorneys get to talk about how to answer, although it is ultimately up to the judge.

So, wish - granted.

 

[HoughMade]

...Good news: juries can - and do - send notes to the judge asking for clarification. When that happens, all the attorneys get to talk about how to answer, although it is ultimately up to the judge.

So, wish - granted.

True story from 2007 I tried (representing as usual, the defendant)- case had 3 verdict forms:

A) Verdict for Plaintiff on Wrongful Death
B) Verdict for Plaintiff on Survival
C) Verdict for Defendant

The Jury question was: "We are confused about verdict forms A and B. C isn't a problem."

....it's almost like asking for a calculator.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Wait, is this turning into a religious thread?


Good news: juries can - and do - send notes to the judge asking for clarification. When that happens, all the attorneys get to talk about how to answer, although it is ultimately up to the judge.

So, wish - granted.

The problem with this is that it brings me right back to the original problem of having the Cliff's Notes version of the law the judge gives me and the judge's opinion on that truncated version of the law. This is a lot different than having the actual law either to sort for myself or to have independent guidance (even if actual independence would not necessarily be easily done).

True story from 2007 I tried (representing as usual, the defendant)- case had 3 verdict forms:

A) Verdict for Plaintiff on Wrongful Death
B) Verdict for Plaintiff on Survival
C) Verdict for Defendant

The Jury question was: "We are confused about verdict forms A and B. C isn't a problem."

....it's almost like asking for a calculator.

Not really enough context here to follow the story, particularly the questions being asked.

 

[foszoe]

printcraft on jury would NEVER convict.

Sorry, occupational hazard of being a criminal.
Until it is legal to rob someone (.gov excluded) the victim WINS every. single. time.

What if the shooter hadn't paid you and expected you to do even more work pro bono?

 

[printcraft]

What if the shooter hadn't paid you and expected you to do even more work pro bono?

He's the robber in that scenario.....

 

[JettaKnight]

One would hope for multiple indictments. Say, one for criminal recklessness or something that's a misdemeanor. Guilty on that count, the rest of the felony counts can get not guilty.

Right?

 

[BugI02]

Interesting point. How would that come to be known unless the prosecutor, defense attorney, or judge were watching INGO, or are you saying that the screening process is devised to weed out anyone who can't be led by the nose?

Pretty much. Peremptory Challenge [STRIKE]is[/STRIKE] seems designed to eliminate people whose opinion is unlikely to be swayed by the narrative that will be presented

 

[BugI02]

I think I might understand, somewhat, what's being said by the barristers, Dave. On a jury you are there at that time in that place to convict or aquit the defendent on the charges brought against him (or her or it). Other parts of the legal system have decided whether and for what to charge the defendent. It is not a jurors role to question that part of the process or attempt to change it. I think none of us would feel good about a jury charged with our fate feeling we are not guilty as charged but shopping the criminal code because they're convinced we must be guilty of something.

 

[2A_Tom]

In the case I mentioned, there was no doubt in our minds the guy was guilty. There was a mention by the defense of a motion to suppress the search, that had been denied in preliminary hearing.

The defense was wrong to mention it and the judge struck it and told us to disregard it.

The DB was so guilty. There was one witness that the defense tried to say he had made a deal for reduced sentense.

We found out after the trial that he testified because the DB and his son feared he would turn states evidence, so the son tied him up in a barn and set it on fire.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think I might understand, somewhat, what's being said by the barristers, Dave. On a jury you are there at that time in that place to convict or aquit the defendent on the charges brought against him (or her or it). Other parts of the legal system have decided whether and for what to charge the defendent. It is not a jurors role to question that part of the process or attempt to change it. I think none of us would feel good about a jury charged with our fate feeling we are not guilty as charged but shopping the criminal code because they're convinced we must be guilty of something.

I can understand. I am not supporting allowing substitutions but rather the possibility of being mislead into thinking that you must either convict someone who is guilty but not guilty of as serious a charge as has been filed or else let a guilty man walk or the concealment of an affirmative defense provided by the IC but not the judge. I guess I am a believer that there is no such thing as too much truth when trying to sort out the truth. To fictionally generate a hypothetical to make my point, let's say that I am a juror on a murder trial. Let's say that the evidence leaves me with no question that the defendant did it, but if falls right on the border of qualifying for murder or not, but manslaughter would be a slam dunk. I am going to be a lot less motivated by the belief that the defendant needs punished for his misdeeds knowing that the prosecutor apparently didn't think it important enough to go with the solid case over punting, or else it would stand in evidence of malicious prosecution as a tool of extortion after not getting the defendant to cop a plea as anticipated. I have a problem with being mislead into being anyone's tool.

 

[T.Lex]

I can understand. I am not supporting allowing substitutions but rather the possibility of being mislead into thinking that you must either convict someone who is guilty but not guilty of as serious a charge as has been filed or else let a guilty man walk or the concealment of an affirmative defense provided by the IC but not the judge.

With this last part, if the judge did not allow presentation of an affirmative defense that had factual support, it would get reversed on appeal. Frankly, even if the factual support was weak, it still might get reversed.

I guess I am a believer that there is no such thing as too much truth when trying to sort out the truth. To fictionally generate a hypothetical to make my point, let's say that I am a juror on a murder trial. Let's say that the evidence leaves me with no question that the defendant did it, but if falls right on the border of qualifying for murder or not, but manslaughter would be a slam dunk. I am going to be a lot less motivated by the belief that the defendant needs punished for his misdeeds knowing that the prosecutor apparently didn't think it important enough to go with the solid case over punting, or else it would stand in evidence of malicious prosecution as a tool of extortion after not getting the defendant to cop a plea as anticipated. I have a problem with being mislead into being anyone's tool.

While I understand your final point, a jury is a tool. An exceptionally powerful tool. Like with any such tool, much depends on the materials it is presented.

It is not the juror's role to second-guess the prosecutor's actions. There are other tools to fix those issues.

 

[IndyDave1776]

With this last part, if the judge did not allow presentation of an affirmative defense that had factual support, it would get reversed on appeal. Frankly, even if the factual support was weak, it still might get reversed.


While I understand your final point, a jury is a tool. An exceptionally powerful tool. Like with any such tool, much depends on the materials it is presented.

It is not the juror's role to second-guess the prosecutor's actions. There are other tools to fix those issues.

OK, this leads to the big question: If jurors are too stupid to be told the truth, too stupid to deal with rules derived from the Constitution regarding evidence, and too stupid to be told the entire truth, too stupid to have the pertinent laws available to them, and too stupid for any independent thought whatsoever, then what is the point of having a jury?

 

[T.Lex]

OK, this leads to the big question: If jurors are too stupid to be told the truth, too stupid to deal with rules derived from the Constitution regarding evidence, and too stupid to be told the entire truth, too stupid to have the pertinent laws available to them, and too stupid for any independent thought whatsoever, then what is the point of having a jury?

Said every trial lawyer at some point in their career.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Said every trial lawyer at some point in their career.

I am not surprised to hear that from the perspective to which it applies, but seriously, how can a juror effectively do the job of seeking truth and rendering a just verdict if he is kept in the dark and fed sh*t?

 

[T.Lex]

Sorry, ID, you deserve a non-facetious answer.

Let me go back to the powerful tool analogy.

Let's say you have a box. Inside that box is a pistol. It might be a Jennings or a Glock, a Hi-Point or a Hi-Power, a WWII FP-45 Liberator or a museum quality Luger. You can influence the guy putting the firearm in the box, but once it is in the box, you have no control over it. You can try to make sure it is on the higher-quality end, but there are no guarantees.

Then, you have to use that pistol in a life-or-death situation.

That's kinda like a jury trial. Most juries are decent or better. Not stupid. They do the best they can, within the framework they have.

Another reality is that the only cases that go to jury are the ones that can't be resolved. That means, there is some issue about the case or one of the parties that means the jury is the only way to get a final answer. On the criminal side, it might be someone who is facing a Habitual Offender enhancement, so they HAVE to fight a loser of a case if they want to at least try to avoid a significant amount of time in jail. But, we can't tell that to they jury! We want them ignorant of that kind of thing, so they focus on the trial.

On the civil side, there are financial situations where it is cheaper to see what a jury will do than to settle the case. Can't really tell the jury that, either.

In other words, a good jury will be reasonable, follow the instructions to the best of their ability, pay attention to the evidence, and take it seriously. Stupidity is not part of that.

ETA:
Sorry, we posted at nearly the same time. I should've stated earlier that I disagree with your Garbage In/Garbage Out depiction. Well, most of the time. Jurors are fed the information that the judge (and the parties) decide is the "right" information, based on the huge volume of laws and cases on these things. That it is filtered does not make it garbage. It only means the inputs are carefully selected.

Not selected to reach a specific decision. Both parties are trying to reach separate conclusions. That's the adversarial process in action.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Sorry, ID, you deserve a non-facetious answer.

Let me go back to the powerful tool analogy.

Let's say you have a box. Inside that box is a pistol. It might be a Jennings or a Glock, a Hi-Point or a Hi-Power, a WWII FP-45 Liberator or a museum quality Luger. You can influence the guy putting the firearm in the box, but once it is in the box, you have no control over it. You can try to make sure it is on the higher-quality end, but there are no guarantees.

Then, you have to use that pistol in a life-or-death situation.

That's kinda like a jury trial. Most juries are decent or better. Not stupid. They do the best they can, within the framework they have.

Another reality is that the only cases that go to jury are the ones that can't be resolved. That means, there is some issue about the case or one of the parties that means the jury is the only way to get a final answer. On the criminal side, it might be someone who is facing a Habitual Offender enhancement, so they HAVE to fight a loser of a case if they want to at least try to avoid a significant amount of time in jail. But, we can't tell that to they jury! We want them ignorant of that kind of thing, so they focus on the trial.

On the civil side, there are financial situations where it is cheaper to see what a jury will do than to settle the case. Can't really tell the jury that, either.

In other words, a good jury will be reasonable, follow the instructions to the best of their ability, pay attention to the evidence, and take it seriously. Stupidity is not part of that.

ETA:
Sorry, we posted at nearly the same time. I should've stated earlier that I disagree with your Garbage In/Garbage Out depiction. Well, most of the time. Jurors are fed the information that the judge (and the parties) decide is the "right" information, based on the huge volume of laws and cases on these things. That it is filtered does not make it garbage. It only means the inputs are carefully selected.

Not selected to reach a specific decision. Both parties are trying to reach separate conclusions. That's the adversarial process in action.

Good answers all the way around, especially that nice analogy for the selection process. As for the specific situation of a defendant facing a habitual offender enhancement, I would argue that this should be a separate issue for the jury to render a decision on. Case in point, as a juror, I would take an entire different approach to dealing with someone who is obviously an habitual offender as opposed to becoming a tool to bushwhacking someone who happens to fall withing the parameters (say, a conviction for battery at 19, felony DUI at 22, and a clean record until someone happens when the man is 55 and beats the dogsh*t out of some punk who manhandled his granddaughter, as opposed to Shizzle who has a rap sheet longer than my arm and all fairly recent convictions). If I were unwillingly made a tool of a habitual offender enhancement on the first person, I would probably be no end of pissed at one or more someones in the process.

Once again, I see much more danger in manipulating the jury through controlling information than there is in the jury knowing the truth.