Colorado Victim Might Go To Jail

[ghuns]

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.

Isn't the jury required to be ignorant of it? At least in a habitual offender case?

I sat on one of those cases. All us jurors were like, what are we doing here? The dude was soooooo obviously guilty. Eyewitnesses, physical evidence, DNA, etc. Everything screamed, he did it. Took 30 seconds to deliberate, but we waited a half hour to let them know. Just so it looked like we did something.

After reading the verdict, instead of getting cut loose, they sent us back to the jury room. We were stuck there for hours until they finally brought us back in and told us that it was the guys "third strike". Allegedly.

We would now get to sit and hear evidence that he was in fact the same human being convicted the two previous times. He was. It took a little longer for the second round of deliberations. His first felony was pretty rinky-dink so a few felt bad about sending him away forever. But the rest of us thought that he more than made up for it on the next two. In the end, we decided that he won't be assaulting anymore little old ladies in this lifetime.

 

[T.Lex]

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.

Funny you should go there with the HO thing.

Typically, for an HO enhancement, the trial is bifurcated - first, the jury hears the evidence about the current felony charge. If they decide guilty on that (which is usually routine), THEN they get the evidence about the prior convictions and decide whether there is the proper foundation for the HO. (Also usually pretty routine, but there are some complicated issues about whether any given prior conviction can support the HO.)

What we (as a society) DON'T want is for the jury to hear about other convictions along with the current case, and decide "dang, I don't care what he did in this case, he needs to go away for all this other stuff!"

In that situation, what we want out of jurors is to follow the law. Are the "predicate offenses" there? Yes - then HO. No - then not HO.

Also, not that this is worth much, but millions, if not billions, of hours have been spent over the years to figure out the rules about what evidence is appropriate or not. There are solid reasons why some is allowed and some isn't.

For the most part, I would say the rules are there to prevent mob rule - which is what juries can devolve into. That's fine if you are in line with what the majority of the mob agrees with, but bad if you're not. The rules are suppose to protect both.

Isn't the jury required to be ignorant of it? At least in a habitual offender case?

Oops, yes, addressed this as we both posted.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Funny you should go there with the HO thing.

Typically, for an HO enhancement, the trial is bifurcated - first, the jury hears the evidence about the current felony charge. If they decide guilty on that (which is usually routine), THEN they get the evidence about the prior convictions and decide whether there is the proper foundation for the HO. (Also usually pretty routine, but there are some complicated issues about whether any given prior conviction can support the HO.)

What we (as a society) DON'T want is for the jury to hear about other convictions along with the current case, and decide "dang, I don't care what he did in this case, he needs to go away for all this other stuff!"

In that situation, what we want out of jurors is to follow the law. Are the "predicate offenses" there? Yes - then HO. No - then not HO.

Also, not that this is worth much, but millions, if not billions, of hours have been spent over the years to figure out the rules about what evidence is appropriate or not. There are solid reasons why some is allowed and some isn't.

For the most part, I would say the rules are there to prevent mob rule - which is what juries can devolve into. That's fine if you are in line with what the majority of the mob agrees with, but bad if you're not. The rules are suppose to protect both.



Oops, yes, addressed this as we both posted.

That makes sense. So long as it is put in the jury's hands without being smuggled through without their willful choice to implement it, I do not have an objection. As you describe, it does not put the juror in the position of making a choice he otherwise would not make.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, ghuns' experience is how it is supposed to work.

Having said that, there was an evolution to the HO stuff. And, apropos to INGO, the Serious Violent Felon in Possession of a Firearm (SVFPF) crime.

Imagine having a trial to determine if someone had possession of a firearm! I mean, even in Indiana, people know that firearms are legal to own. So, it would seem odd to have a jury decide a person had one.

But, that's basically how it works - if there are other charges.

Check out this case:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/08261402msm.pdf

Or this one:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-court-of-appeals/1139254.html

 

[foszoe]

After reading through this thread, I think I should get an honorary JD

 

[actaeon277]

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.

Gee. I've been called 3 times.
Never had my number picked though

 

[Woobie]

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.

The Information stated that (Perp) did willfully commit rape against (Victim) while in possession of a knife. The victim testified that it was the knife. But that to us was he said/she said, and wasn't beyond a reasonable doubt, especially concerning what we saw as some credibility issues with her. The only deadly weapon involved beyond a reasonable doubt was the attacker himself. He clearly possessed deadly force simply by virtue of his size difference. He had clearly overpowered her at every step along the way.

 

[2A_Tom]

Gee. I've been called 3 times.
Never had my number picked though

Lake County S****. The first two times I was called It was for 6 weeks report every Monday @ 7. I did two trials both times.

Now it is only for one week. This last time I was seated but the defense plead out.

My wife and daughter have been called for federal court in Hammond several times, but each time they call they are told not to report.

It Pays to be a registered voter, I think it is twenty a day and 1.50 travel.

 

[actaeon277]

Lake County S****. The first two times I was called It was for 6 weeks report every Monday @ 7. I did two trials both times.

Now it is only for one week. This last time I was seated but the defense plead out.

My wife and daughter have been called for federal court in Hammond several times, but each time they call they are told not to report.

It Pays to be a registered voter, I think it is twenty a day and 1.50 travel.

All mine were Federal cases.

 

[2A_Tom]

Back from the thread jack.

Fleeing felon rule, Wikipedia.

At common law, the fleeing felon rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight. Force may be used by the victim, bystanders, or police officers. According to David Caplan "Immediate stopping of the fleeing felon, whether actually or presumably dangerous, was deemed absolutely necessary for the security of the people in a free state, and for maintaining the "public security."

U.S. Law

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others. Robert C. Ankony, "Sociological and Criminological Theory: Brief of Theorists, Theories, and Terms," CFM Research, Jul. 2012, p.37

 

[Fargo]

Back from the thread jack.

Fleeing felon rule, Wikipedia.



U.S. Law

Tennessee v. Garner doesn't really apply to individuals. The 4th Amendment only prohibits unreasonable seizures by the government, not by private actors.

Private actors are constrained by the self defense statutes and/or caselaw of the jurisdiction. The old common law doctrine relating to citizens and fleeing felons has been done away with most everywhere by statute or by further caselaw, but not really by Tenn. v. Garner.

Keep in mind that the definition of a felony at common law was crimes punishable by death. The definition has been distorted beyond belief today.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Tennessee v. Garner doesn't really apply to individuals. The 4th Amendment only prohibits unreasonable seizures by the government, not by private actors.

Private actors are constrained by the self defense statutes and/or caselaw of the jurisdiction. The old common law doctrine relating to citizens and fleeing felons has been done away with most everywhere by statute or by further caselaw, but not really by Tenn. v. Garner.

Keep in mind that the definition of a felony at common law was crimes punishable by death. The definition has been distorted beyond belief today.

Definitions of law get distorted? Say it isn't so!

 

[T.Lex]

Re-jacking the thread, for this part.

The Information stated that (Perp) did willfully commit rape against (Victim) while in possession of a knife. The victim testified that it was the knife. But that to us was he said/she said, and wasn't beyond a reasonable doubt, especially concerning what we saw as some credibility issues with her. The only deadly weapon involved beyond a reasonable doubt was the attacker himself. He clearly possessed deadly force simply by virtue of his size difference. He had clearly overpowered her at every step along the way.

[sigh]
Perhaps we should go back to hypotheticals. Again, thank you for your service as a juror, but this might get awkward. This is also why jurors, generally, can't impeach their own verdict.

I had a whole post typed out, but need to think about how to address the issues posed by a hypothetical where the jury convicts on the basis of facts not alleged in the information. As I recall (subject to correction by current practitioners) rape + deadly weapon is the same possible sentence as rape + serious bodily injury, so ultimately, I don't think there would be any prejudice.

 

[Fargo]

Re-jacking the thread, for this part.

[sigh]
Perhaps we should go back to hypotheticals. Again, thank you for your service as a juror, but this might get awkward. This is also why jurors, generally, can't impeach their own verdict.

I had a whole post typed out, but need to think about how to address the issues posed by a hypothetical where the jury convicts on the basis of facts not alleged in the information. As I recall (subject to correction by current practitioners) rape + deadly weapon is the same possible sentence as rape + serious bodily injury, so ultimately, I don't think there would be any prejudice.

Off the top of my head, it may depend on what year. The current scheme is different from 2 years ago.

edit: what you said is correct under both schemes. SBI and deadly weapon were the same enhancement.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Off the top of my head, it depends on what year. The current scheme is much different from 2 years ago.

In your reckoning, are the changes an improvement?

 

[Fargo]

In your reckoning, are the changes an improvement?

On rape, they are a slight improvement if enhanced. On the burglaries that seem to usually go along with forcible stranger rape, they are an huge step backwards.

http://fox59.com/2015/05/07/prosecutor-outraged-over-hug-a-thug-law/

 

[IndyDave1776]

On rape, they are a slight improvement if enhanced. On the burglaries that seem to usually go along with forcible stranger rape, they are an huge step backwards.

Johnson County prosecutor outraged over ?hug a thug? law | Fox 59

I see your point. 63 years with possible early release at any time against 168 years such that he would never see the outside of a prison alive again. Slight difference!

How exactly does the 'enhanced' thing work?

 

[Fargo]

I see your point. 63 years with possible early release at any time against 168 years such that he would never see the outside of a prison alive again. Slight difference!

How exactly does the 'enhanced' thing work?

Normal rape is a level 3 felony, it is in enhanced to a level one if there is a deadly weapon, threat of deadly force, serious bodily injury or drugging involved. The level one is a facial improvement because the new scheme gives fewer time cuts. If memory serves, and I could be wrong about this, the level III is actually a step backward from the class B felony it used to be.

Either way, the new scheme allows for quite a few sentence modifications that were never permitted under the old scheme.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Normal rape is a level 3 felony, it is in enhanced to a level one if there is a deadly weapon, threat of deadly force, serious bodily injury or drugging involved. The level one is a facial improvement because the new scheme gives fewer time cuts. If memory serves, and I could be wrong about this, the level III is actually a step backward from the class B felony it used to be.

Either way, the new scheme allows for quite a few sentence modifications that were never permitted under the old scheme.

OK, so not only does it in most cases significantly cut the penalty, rather than being a relatively cut and dried thing once guilt is proven, it takes on a similarity with Captain Kirk playing Fisbin with the mobsters.

 

[Fargo]

How much the penalty was actually reduced is affected by how much automatic good time credit is given. The new scheme gives less good time credit on the upper level felonies than the old scheme so a strict year-to-year comparison isn't really valid. Under the old scheme sentences were automatically cut by half. Under the new scheme upper-level felonies are cut by one quarter. However, the old minimum nonsuspendable time has been removed for many felonies, and there are way more opportunities for defendants to seek modification than there used to be.

IMO burglary is the statute that got reduced the most significantly. Class A's turned into level II's with much less potential time and enhancements were made more difficult.