re: Unanimous Juries- How ya votin and why?

I find it interesting that the primary argument I'm seeing against unanimous juries is that disinterested citizens might lie under oath and commit perjury during jury selection.

I imagine the overwhelmingly majority of you who are putting forward that argument would believe an interested witness who took the stand during a trial unless proven otherwise.

quote:

---

That does not address reasonable doubt at all.

---

I guess I am confused. Do you think a juror voting no means he has reasonable doubts?

The Democrat Party headquarters in downtown BR have big vote YES on #2 signs in the window. That’s all you need to know on how to vote for that one.

A big NO.

quote:

---

The Democrat Party headquarters in downtown BR have big vote YES on #2 signs in the window. That’s all you need to know on how to vote for that one. A big NO.

---

Or you could think for yourself instead of doing the opposite of what Dems want because the LAGOP also supports the amendment.

The founders may have wanted unanimous, but if it isn't unconstitutional, we are free to pick non unanimous juries.

Because a law was created with evil intent, is that enough to amend it 65 years later if the law is good? You can create something for terrible reasons and end up with a good law 50 years later.

I'm playing devil's advocate in my own thread.

quote:

---

These guys weren’t holdouts. They both walked in the deliberation room and said not guilty. Both stated there was nothing that could be said to convince them to change their vote. Both ended up with convictions at 11-1.

---

And in a unanimous jury paradigm, both would have sat in that shitty little jury room for the next dozen hours at minimum, or the next few days at maximum.

It's easy to pull a stunt like that when you know there are no consequences.

Those who value small government and liberty will vote "yes"

quote:

---

How do you know the prosecutor was incompetent?



Because he didn't know how to get in his key piece of evidence, which any third year law student would have been able to do.

Like I posted last time:

quote:
On a separate issue, the prosecutor would have had to have been utterly incompetent to not get in the prior testimony of the complainant. A situation in which someone previously testified but is now deceased clearly falls within La. C.E. Art. 804, which are exceptions to the hearsay rule in which the declarant is unavailable. In this case, the complainant would have been considered unavailable under A(4) and the testimony would have been covered under B(1).

---

The trial was in 1979. Was that exception in effect then?

There is no way a district attorney and his assistants were unaware of an exception like the one you quoted. If they couldn't use the deceased landlord's prior testimony at our trial there had to be a valid reason for it other than what you choose to believe, incompetence.

For all I know, the landlord's testimony at one or both of the prior trials which were thrown out may have been the reason those verdicts were overturned on appeal. So the prosecution believed it best not to enter his testimony at our trial.

The judge didn't go into detail what the "technicalities" were that had those verdicts voided.

quote:

---

A jury voting 10-2 to convict on non-capital offense cases is okay with me.

---

This is why I voted NO