Colorado Victim Might Go To Jail

[IndyDave1776]

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.

Rather than the old three credit class system, there is less automatic reduction and a lot more opportunity for greater reductions if an inmate does monkey tricks for the judge.

 

[Fargo]

Rather than the old three credit class system, there is less automatic reduction and a lot more opportunity for greater reductions if an inmate does monkey tricks for the judge.

Basically, yes. You have to keep in mind that Indiana's sentencing system has been based on lies for decades. Under the old scheme, a 20 year sentence really usually meant around seven actual. The new scheme makes the numeric lies a little less false, but really destroys any finality in a sentence. That 30 years sentence can turn into a 10 year sentence really at any time.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Basically, yes. You have to keep in mind that Indiana's sentencing system has been based on lies for decades. Under the old scheme, a 20 year sentence really usually meant around seven actual. The new scheme makes the numeric lies a little less false, but really destroys any finality in a sentence. That 30 years sentence can turn into a 10 year sentence really at any time.

I see. The way it was presented in DOC training back in the dark ages was that the original indefinite sentencing scheme was ruled unconstitutional by the state Supremes who declared that an inmate has a right to know when he is going to get out. Rather than simply ruling the obvious, that if you get 10 to 20, then 20 years is the out date, we shifted to a definite sentencing structure as we had in which you got a 20 year sentence which allowed assorted manifestations of credit time, with no net difference aside from semantics. From the sound of it, we morphed from this into playing paper, rock, and scissors!

 

[IndyDave1776]

I finally got the Indiana Constitution to load in spite of it really not wanting to do so!

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.

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.

From another thread, we have this:

If the law is not changed, what would your opinion be regarding jury nullification?

I do not believe in it with one reason being that it is makes it more comfortable to keep bad laws on the books, among other things.

Given that the Indiana Constitution says:

Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts

It seems that denial of access to the IC and instructions against nullification stand in flagrant violation of the state constitution.

 

[Woobie]

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.

I think I know where you're going with that first sentence. No worries. We explained it to the judge, and she said what we had done was perfectly in line with the law and the charges. Perhaps I'm not explaining this correctly. Anywho, I have been jacking this thread long enough. But I wouldn't mind discussing this further with you.

 

[T.Lex]

I finally got the Indiana Constitution to load in spite of it really not wanting to do so!

In fairness, it was around before the internet....

Given that the Indiana Constitution says:

It seems that denial of access to the IC and instructions against nullification stand in flagrant violation of the state constitution.

First, that section does not mean what you think it means. For good reasons. As noted by woobie, the jury in Indiana is able to review the law applicable to the case and determine whether/how to apply it.

I think you filter the jury system through your own perspective - which is totally understandable. I suspect you (and woobie) would be rational, reasonable and reasoned in your deliberations. But, the system as a whole has to play to the lowest common denominator and protect defendants against THOSE jurors.

Look around INGO. Would you really be comfortable allowing the ENTIRE IC to some people with the expressed attitudes about certain classes of Americans? What do we do if the jury convicts of something that wasn't even charged?

Oh, and upthread you said something about how you can't have "too much truth" or something like that. Trials are about evidence/proof. It is up to juries to ferret out whatever kernel of truth there might be. Other systems have judges involved in investigations, with the goal of getting to The Truth. But then that leaves much riding on personal prejudices and possible corruption. Years ago, they introduced a mechanism here in Indiana to allow jurors to ask the judge to ask questions of witnesses. Perhaps Hough, KF or Fargo can provide insight on how that's working.

Second, if we're really going to go old school Indiana Constitution (and, BTW, I think we have one of the best state constitutions out there) what do you think of the immediately preceding section - Section 18?

The penal code shall be founded on principles of reformation, and not vindictive justice.

Or are you also against the death penalty. (Apologies, you may've mentioned your position on that elsewhere, I just can't remember.)

 

[billmyn]

Give the homeowner the "key to the city" tell him he did a good thing in protecting the lives of other innocent people, because the scumbag would have kept doing it until someone either killed him or worst, a innocent person is killed by the perp. Once again an innocent man will probably be punished.

 

[Fargo]

I see. The way it was presented in DOC training back in the dark ages was that the original indefinite sentencing scheme was ruled unconstitutional by the state Supremes who declared that an inmate has a right to know when he is going to get out. Rather than simply ruling the obvious, that if you get 10 to 20, then 20 years is the out date, we shifted to a definite sentencing structure as we had in which you got a 20 year sentence which allowed assorted manifestations of credit time, with no net difference aside from semantics. From the sound of it, we morphed from this into playing paper, rock, and scissors!

Yes, the third scheme we are on functions similarly to indeterminate sentencing except the sentencing judge has replaced the parole board. Judges regularly impose very harsh sentences, knowing full well that they will modify them a few years down the road.

 

[Fargo]

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.

I don't know that it is really accurate to say that the judge determines the law. Off the top of my head, the pattern jury instruction says that the jury is the determiner of law, but that the judge is the best source of instruction on what the law is. I believe it is reversible error to not instruct the jury that they determine what the law is.

Of course, the judge decides what jury instructions will be given on the law, but that's not really the same thing as him determining what the law is.

 

[IndyDave1776]

In fairness, it was around before the internet....


First, that section does not mean what you think it means. For good reasons. As noted by woobie, the jury in Indiana is able to review the law applicable to the case and determine whether/how to apply it.

I think you filter the jury system through your own perspective - which is totally understandable. I suspect you (and woobie) would be rational, reasonable and reasoned in your deliberations. But, the system as a whole has to play to the lowest common denominator and protect defendants against THOSE jurors.

Look around INGO. Would you really be comfortable allowing the ENTIRE IC to some people with the expressed attitudes about certain classes of Americans? What do we do if the jury convicts of something that wasn't even charged?

Oh, and upthread you said something about how you can't have "too much truth" or something like that. Trials are about evidence/proof. It is up to juries to ferret out whatever kernel of truth there might be. Other systems have judges involved in investigations, with the goal of getting to The Truth. But then that leaves much riding on personal prejudices and possible corruption. Years ago, they introduced a mechanism here in Indiana to allow jurors to ask the judge to ask questions of witnesses. Perhaps Hough, KF or Fargo can provide insight on how that's working.

Second, if we're really going to go old school Indiana Constitution (and, BTW, I think we have one of the best state constitutions out there) what do you think of the immediately preceding section - Section 18?



Or are you also against the death penalty. (Apologies, you may've mentioned your position on that elsewhere, I just can't remember.)

I am going to say that we are probably a lot closer than I am sounding with the points I am emphasizing.

Your example regarding Woobie hits dead center. Up thread, someone else mentioned having received instructions from the judge prohibiting nullification, which stands in direct conflict with the Constitution, which was my primary thought in that regard.

I understand the problems with LCD jurors and being turned loose with the IC like children in a candy store, but I can see it working just fine to be able to see the entire applicable body of law and the law allowing the jury to trade down but not up, and not add new charges that weren't charged, so that, say, the jury can't reach and agreement on a murder conviction, but everyone at the table can go along with a rock solid case for manslaughter, manslaughter it is. A guilty person doesn't walk and the jurors can walk away feeling that they have been fair in their work.

No such thing as too much truth... As I see it, by selectively allowing some pertinent information but not all, it is very easy to manipulate the situation even in an adversarial system of establishing what information is provided. As a juror, (accepting the risks with the LCD juror) I would rather have evidence gathered unconstitutionally made known along with the circumstances of its improper acquisition. I would feel that I could deal better with the situation knowing if it was a stupid mistake or there is a pattern indicating an ax to grind with the defendant. Even with more pedestrian pieces of information, if something needs filtered out, I feel much more comfortable doing it myself than trusting people who, in my experience, have often not been all that trustworthy.

Section 18... This is at the heart of why I didn't work out in the DOC. Contrary to the publicly-embraced stance on the matter, the game is all about warehousing convicts and doing so in a way that reflects the realization that job security and promotion opportunity rest on keeping the numbers up, which requires recidivism. So far as I am concerned, deliberately steering inmates in a direction that encourages recidivism is one of the most vindictive things that can possibly be done. Making an effort to encourage positive change will brand a person a thug hugger. I, for one, do not see making the effort to encourage problem people to make a positive change such as to live an upright life and not return to prison as being soft of criminals. The critical difference is that of encouraging the wrong-thinking and wrong-doing elements of society to move to an honorable existence rather than accepting and condoning their wrong existence.

Death penalty... While I have reservations about the integrity of the system administering it, in principle I do not object. Some people just aren't going to get any better and need put down. I do not see this as necessarily being vindictive in nature, just an acknowledgement of the fact that some people are beyond improvement and make that fact very clear.

Let me tell a story about the death penalty. The reason why Indiana moved to lethal injection was the first bill John Waterman introduced when he was elected to the state Senate. As a sheriff, he had a case in which the local worst of the worst criminal was charged with murder for knocking a teenage girl's head in with a tire iron. The girl in question was the girlfriend of the criminal's nephew/son. I put it that way because the boy was legally his nephew, but genetically the product of this man raping his sister in law while his brother was in prison. He decided that he wanted a piece of the girlfriend and she, predictably, was disinterested, so he expressed his displeasure by killing her. Two women on the jury refused to vote to convict because they just couldn't send anyone to that [nasty, evil] electric chair, no matter what he did. So far as I am concerned, there is no way realistically possible that someone like that is ever going to improve. Putting him down would not have been an act of vindictiveness, but rather a proper acceptance of reality.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yes, the third scheme we are on functions similarly to indeterminate sentencing except the sentencing judge has replaced the parole board. Judges regularly impose very harsh sentences, knowing full well that they will modify them a few years down the road.

I don't know how significant this may be to life, the universe, or anything, but I noticed that this pattern of imposing harsh sentences and later modifying seemed more extreme with women. In my observation, men usually ended up with pretty close to the original sentence, often more realistic initially and more closely followed, where women were more likely to be sentenced until the second coming of Christ for seemingly smaller offenses, but modified out in a relatively short overall time.

 

[Paul30]

Can you tell us more about the group?

I can give you their web site. The power of the jury is suppose to be able to trump stupid laws. The law is on trial as much as the person. If a juror thinks the law is stupid and the man on trial should walk, they have the power to make that happen.


Jury Nullification | Fully Informed Jury Association


[url]http://fija.org/docs/CI_Indiana_vs_Thompson.txt
[/URL]