Colorado Victim Might Go To Jail

[Woobie]

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.

 

[T.Lex]

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.

Cool. Criminal or civil?

 

[jamil]

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.

I never hear of any Navy Seals coming from Massachusetts or Rhode Island or Vermont. They always seem to come from some place like Texas.

 

[IndyDave1776]

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?

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?

 

[Woobie]

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.

 

[IndyDave1776]

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.

That is what it's all about--making the right decision, in the knowledge that if you make the wrong decision, you have jacked up the rest of an innocent person's life and allowed a criminal to walk free with impunity.

 

[Woobie]

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 will say that the lawyers in the trial I sat on did not leave you without options. But they did ask questions very similar to what T Lex described. They want to know you care about the law. And don't be too sure you won't paint yourself in a corner. Trial lawyers study for years on how to ask questions.

 

[T.Lex]

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?

I am not aware of a juror ever being prosecuted for perjury for something like that. In fact, I know of several instances where a juror was... less than truthful during selection, and it was only discovered after sentencing. (Part of what's called a post-conviction relief proceeding.) I do not believe any perjury charges were filed, although the prosecutor involved was MIGHTILY peeved.

(As a total aside, it is one thing to lose an appeal for something you could've done differently. It is another to lose because of something that was deliberately hidden.)

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)?

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.

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?

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.

 

[T.Lex]

Trial lawyers study for years on how to ask questions.

The good ones, do.

And, as ID1776 said, ultimately we just want jurors to take it seriously. At least, that's what I wanted.

 

[IndyDave1776]

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.

 

[T.Lex]

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.

 

[IndyDave1776]

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.

From the perspective of managing a trial, I can understand this, and this was part of my concern. Keeping the jury in the dark to the extent possible strikes me as being much like a judicial nullification of the jury, which is why I have a problem with the effort to rope jurors into being rubber stamps. It also perverts justice in the sense that you leave a jury with no question that a crime occurred, then having to decide whether to punish someone more severely than is deserved or to send a victim home with no justice whatsoever. If we are going to have this approach, we might as well eliminate juries altogether since in reality that is what is done in a situation like this.

 

[HoughMade]

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.

 

[T.Lex]

Judges will not allow the criminal code in the jury room. It is reversible error.

And that's why I should STFU about trial work.

 

[IndyDave1776]

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.

 

[2A_Tom]

I am on someone's hit list. I have been called for jury duty more than anyone I know. I have been seated in the box 7 times, and have sat through 4 trials. I had to beg to be released once.

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.

 

[HoughMade]

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.

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.

 

[stephen87]

Can we rename Stand Your Ground to Make My Day?

 

[Brandon]

Guilty, Time served. Have a good day.

 

[T.Lex]

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.

Well, really, that makes every juror a judge. If that's the way we want it to be, let's go all the way: every juror must attend law school, practice a few years, then be eligible.

But, like HM says, we have to be real about this.

Jury trials are like chess, deals get made, and justice is usually done. Or, as close as we can get in the vast majority of cases.