- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:34 pm to BenDover78
And to be fair, I'm sure there were many times when the rule was used to convict people that shouldn't have been because 10 people were going to convict no matter the evidence.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:36 pm to BenDover78
quote:
I think he means- how can there be "beyond a reasonable doubt" when 2 jurors literally say "WE HAVE DOUBT"
I know and that's what i answered.
Reasonable doubt is a concept for each individual juror. It is not a concept for the whole jury. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" means something different for each person.
The previous law only required that 10 out of 12 people thought someone was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for that person to be convicted.
The law was not "Hey jury, He must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted"
It's a difficult concept to explain over a message board.
But the gist is that "Beyond a reasonable doubt" has nothing to do with HOW MANY people think you're guilty
For example, let's say you have a 13 person jury instead of a 12 person jury. You present the exact same evidence, same arguments, everything you would to a 12 person jury that found him unanimously guilty. But this time, the first 12 jurors find he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but the 13th doesnt.
Is the person any less culpable in the mind of the first 12 jurors?
The law merely changed the NUMBER of people that must find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:39 pm to Ash Williams
No I hear you and agree. I was just trying to maybe elaborate/add to the notion he expressed, because it's a popular one. Sorry if I was too overbearing
Posted on 4/23/20 at 2:50 pm to BenDover78
quote:
No I hear you and agree. I was just trying to maybe elaborate/add to the notion he expressed, because it's a popular one. Sorry if I was too overbearing
No worries. You werent overbearing
It's an interesting concept
For example, Ramos now requires that juries be unanimous to convict for serious felonies.
Well there is no requirement that there be 12 people in a jury. What if you did 20 people in a jury and 19 found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Should that guy be found not-guilty?
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:09 pm to Fun Bunch
Thanks for sharing and the sad thing is that out of 12 people you will have 1 or 2 unreasonable people.
I have a good friend who is an attorney in the New Orleans area and he has said that he sees your exact instance very often. People who will not convict for either racial issues or their beliefs. He had a murder trail and 1 juror refused to convict of murder because they didn't believe in the type of punishment associated with murder conviction.
I have a good friend who is an attorney in the New Orleans area and he has said that he sees your exact instance very often. People who will not convict for either racial issues or their beliefs. He had a murder trail and 1 juror refused to convict of murder because they didn't believe in the type of punishment associated with murder conviction.
This post was edited on 4/23/20 at 3:11 pm
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:12 pm to Ash Williams
The initial reason for this was and is disgusting. I have been in and around juries at Tulane and Broad for 22 years. All I can say to those that are all in on this is that you better hope that you or a loved one is not a victim of a serious crime in Orleans Parish. I’m not siding either way because it has good properties on both sides of the argument. What I am saying is that this will allow some rather incredulous “walks” in that courtroom.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:18 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
I don't want to go into too much detail. Let's just says it was an open and shut case with witnesses, co-defendant's testifying against, and DNA evidence. One juror flat out admitted he would never convict someone of his race for any crime no matter the evidence after about 12 hours of us beating on him. He finally gave in. If I wasn't the foreman of that jury I'm not sure it would have worked out.
My wife had the exact same experience with even stronger evidence but 3 jurors flat out said they would not send any of their people to jail. Ended in a hung, my wife was in tears after the whole experience, for the young victim.
One of my close friends is an ADA and has told me horror stories of jury nullification.
In the rest of Louisiana it may not be an issue, but in Orleans Parish it is very, VERY real from talking with people and my own experiences.
Does that outweigh the potential justice it does for those that need it? Probably not, that's why I said "I am mixed on it".
I do have trepidation but it is purely on my own experiences. It is the right call in the interest of justice and Constitutionality, but I can still have conflicting thoughts on it.
Makes sense that you are torn. On one hand, the thought of sending someone to jail for 25 years without a unanimous vote from a jury of your peers seems fricked up and seems like an easy way for someone to get wrongfully convicted. On the other hand, that same jury of your peers can be unreasonably prejudiced and can wrongfully convict or let off someone who was guilty.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:23 pm to BenDover78
quote:
I think he means- how can there be "beyond a reasonable doubt" when 2 jurors literally say "WE HAVE DOUBT"
The problem with this is we don’t know what went on in those deliberation rooms. With only 10 required, sometimes juries will discuss for a bit but stop once they get 10. Other times on completely obvious cases, a juror will vote to not convict simply because they don’t want to if they know they don’t have to, and it will come back 11/1. If 12/12 was required from the outset, who can say that Smith’s case would have been different? Maybe the 2 that are on the fence end up coming to the conclusion that he’s guilty after extra hours of consideration? That’s the problem with retrofitting this ruling and automatically assuming that all 10/2, 11/1 verdicts means the person would’ve had a different outcome or that this means less people incarcerated. The only for sure LA will probably see is more hung juries, more clogged court dockets, and more jury tampering.
I don’t think people ever considered that this also means that there needs to be a unanimous not guilty for an acquittal. Good luck with ever seeing that now.
I’ve heard similar experiences to Fun Bunch and I came to the conclusion long ago that the only answer for LA is professional jurors, but that would never happen
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:24 pm to Throbinhood
quote:
I have a good friend who is an attorney in the New Orleans area and he has said that he sees your exact instance very often. People who will not convict for either racial issues or their beliefs. He had a murder trail and 1 juror refused to convict of murder because they didn't believe in the type of punishment associated with murder conviction.
Excuse my ignorance on this subject, but are prejudices like this not properly vetted during jury selection?
Doesn't the prosecution and defense has a certain number of times they can dismiss a jury candidate? If so, are there just that many people with irrational prejudices in the jury pool at a given time? Otherwise I'd imagine the prosecution/defense would weed these types of people out
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:30 pm to Hazelnut
In theory, yes. People would be honest during jury selection and admit that they cannot be fair or whether they have bias against either side. In practice, people are not asked the right questions, don’t want to speak up, or just outright lie.
The American Justice System is amazing on paper, but suffers from constant user errors
The American Justice System is amazing on paper, but suffers from constant user errors
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:35 pm to Baron
quote:
In theory, yes. People would be honest during jury selection and admit that they cannot be fair or whether they have bias against either side. In practice, people are not asked the right questions, don’t want to speak up, or just outright lie.
The American Justice System is amazing on paper, but suffers from constant user errors
If a juror is asked about a potential prejudice, and it is found out later on (during deliberation or something) that they were flat out lying, shouldn't that be cause to dismiss such juror?
Lying during Jury selection should be considered perjury
I get the justice system isn't perfect. I think we all know that. But that seems like something that can be mitigated better
This post was edited on 4/23/20 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:38 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
One juror flat out admitted he would never convict someone of his race for any crime no matter the evidence
let's not pretend it also doesn't go the other way in terms of race, where some are inclined to automatically vote guilty based upon race.
at the end of the day, racism should not be allowed to circumvent the constitution. SCOTUS got it right. Orleans parish is not the only city in America that faces this issue. they shouldnt have been on of the few that got to play by different rules.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:42 pm to Hazelnut
quote:
Lying during Jury selection should be considered perjury
It is, but proving it is not as simple as it sounds, and I imagine that a place like Orleans Parish is already overwhelmed with cases, it makes it tough to look into. There are other issues with Jury deliberations being secret as well as jury nullification being allowed, it makes it squishy to prove. There are ways that a juror could bring issues like that to the attention of the judge and potentially get a mistrial, but like I said, there is a lot of gray area
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:44 pm to Baron
quote:
It is, but proving it is not as simple as it sounds, and I imagine that a place like Orleans Parish is already overwhelmed with cases, it makes it tough to look into. There are other issues with Jury deliberations being secret as well as jury nullification being allowed, it makes it squishy to prove. There are ways that a juror could bring issues like that to the attention of the judge and potentially get a mistrial, but like I said, there is a lot of gray area
Makes sense. Thanks for the insight
I'm glad I'm not a lawyer. I'm cynical enough already
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:51 pm to BlacknGold
quote:
let's not pretend it also doesn't go the other way in terms of race, where some are inclined to automatically vote guilty based upon race.
Sure, it would be silly to think that it does not go both ways. The problem is that now if you have 1 person who feels that way make the jury, then it’s impossible to get an acquittal because you need unanimous. At the end of the day, I’m not sure that this will change very much, if anything. Because I don’t think it will matter, I’m for unanimous juries, but I think there is more merit to a 10/2 jury than people realize or are willing to admit.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:55 pm to Hazelnut
quote:
I’m glad I'm not a lawyer. I'm cynical enough already
I’m not either, but unfortunately I know enough of them that I get all of the cynicism, without any of the financial benefits Posted on 4/23/20 at 3:56 pm to Baron
We really have to have this thread today of all days? Jesus
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:17 pm to rt3
quote:
quote:
I railed against this law in law school.
Then I served on a Orleans Paris jury in a major case, and now I am decidedly mixed on it.
can you explain further on this, please?
I served on a jury for a fairly simple assault charge. It was obvious the guy did it and yet there were a few people that held out on a guilty because "I cant sleep at night.. or knowing that...". Unanimousness is often very difficult, esp in today's culture where we're so divided and some people are just contrarians.
Just look at the OJ trial. A few bad apples spoil the entire trial and justice being served.
This post was edited on 4/23/20 at 6:18 pm
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:20 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Like I said, in theory, it is now the right call. It is rational and the original rule is steeped in racism.
Personal experience can shade what you know to be rational.
I think if we have legitimate accountability for police and district attorneys alongside removal of this racist split jury law you will see fewer rebellious acts of defiance on juries
Your worries seem to be focused on a result/symptom and not the underlying cause/illness in the system
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News