non-unaminous criminal jury verdicts - should we continue to allow them?

quote:

---

Is this the way we should be doing things?

---

No problems in however many years.

You should know it requires 12/12 to impose the death penalty.

Does the defendant have to agree to that type of jury or is it just certain types of charges where it applies

Here's an idea, don't commit any crimes.

quote:

---

Here's an idea, don't commit any crimes.

---

I'm willing to bet you commit at least one a day.

I recently observed an aggravated rape trial in which semen collected from the victim's vagina had a one in six trillion chance of coming from someone other than the defendant. There were no other contributors. The defense's strategy was to openly admit to the jury that the crime was an aggravated rape but that the defendant wasn't the perp.

Thankfully, the defendant (who was a serial rapist) was convicted. However, the verdict was not unanimous - it was 11 of 12. One juror had no interest in paying attention to the trial and voted not guilty.

Is one in six trillion reasonable doubt, in your opinion?

I watched another recently in which two out of 12 jurors voted not guilty on possession of cocaine and MDMA when it was found on the person of the defendant.

Reasonable doubt?

quote:

---

I'm willing to bet you commit at least one a day.

---

Most people do

quote:

---

Here's an idea, don't commit any crimes.

---

Why do people say this time and time again when discussing a problem/issue with the criminal justice system against the prosecution and jury? It's the laziest argument ever and seeking to keep the status quo.

You commit a crime at least 4-5 times a week btw.

quote:

---

Yes because there's always at least 1 person on the jury that's either:
1 - an idiot
2 - has an agenda
3 - didn't attend the trial but showed up in time to vote
4 - is getting paid off

---

Their agenda might be to stay alive.
I was on a murder trial just over a year ago, in New Orleans. All 12 of us knew he was guilty, but there were a few jurors who did not want the verdict to be unanimous. I'm not trying to sterotype my fellow jurors, but I doubt they lived in a neighborhood similar to mine. The final vote was 11-1, and the juror that voted not to convict, she knew what she was doing. Not a doubt in my mind that had she been the deciding vote, she would have voted guilty.

quote:

---

By the way, why the hell do we require unanimous votes for 6 member misdemeanor panels and not for felonies?

---

That is a good question, and the best answer is - less room for error with 6 than with 12.

Although, it does seem counterintuitive to require 6 out of 6 for disturbing the peace (for example) and 10 out of 12 for manslaughter.

My only real criminal experience was a brief stint as a special assistant district attorney. My main job was to try to keep a convicted public official in jail for my boss, when everybody else wanted her out and kept letting her out.