r/law • u/bendubberley_ • 15h ago

Legal News The judge in the Lindsay Clancy case is admonishing jurors who are refusing to follow his instructions

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

10.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

730

u/KCDeVoe 13h ago

He also harps on what’s “reasonable” and only the facts presented 

I was on jury duty once where jurors where talking about very unreasonable doubt, and “what-ifs” that weren’t part of the defense or evidence 

453

u/HorrorGrapefruit9389 13h ago

I was on one where a woman said “I know the evidence says not guilty, but I believe he’s guilty.”

198

u/Grizzly_Berry 12h ago

I was on one (civil case, person v county) and there was a mix of "I think he deserves the money because the county can spare it," "I have done business with the county and they were a pain in the ass, so they should pay up," and "I will switch my verdict if it means I get to go home."

216

u/GirlNextor123 12h ago

This. I was so excited to serve on a jury, and when we finally got to deliberations I was stunned by the dumb and completely irrelevant arguments that fellow jurors were making.

218

u/thakemist 11h ago

This is the issue with a jury of your peers. Most of our peers are idiots

97

u/StockQuahog 10h ago

Same problem voting

3

u/Freakn_Deadpool 5h ago

Once again, lack of resources in public education shows it’s true colors. Wish we cared about it as much as COMMUNIST China does

2

u/Lobenz 5h ago

George Carlin was referring to voters as well as jurors.

1

u/siccoblue 8h ago

They are literally voting on a verdict my dude

7

u/Salt-Lingonberry-853 7h ago

He's talking about regular old (political) voting, not jurors voting on a verdict.

1

u/LowlySysadmin 7h ago

One affects a small number of people (often one!), the other affects all of us

34

u/Torgud_ 10h ago

The median American can't even read at a 12th grade level. They're barely literate morons.

2

u/sumptin_wierd 6h ago

yeah but we got one over on the commies or something amiright

9

u/MortgageRegular2509 9h ago

Three scariest words in the English language are “trial by jury”

2

u/diggitydonegone 5h ago

Most high functioning people have jobs that often disqualify them from making it through voir dire. And many more people move heaven and earth not to be selected. So, often a jury of our peers is not a good cross section of society.

Depending on the type of charge against me, I would potentially choose a no jury trial.

1

u/Lobenz 5h ago

George Carlin said it best.

1

u/matango613 1h ago

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

1

u/Ordinary-Egg-56 8h ago

the fix is simple but of course it will never happen because conservatives won’t let it.

unemployed people can be excused from jury service or paid a fair and reasonable amount for their time (so absolutely not min wage). employed people are protected from losing their job for serving on jury either during or after, their employer continues to pay them during that time and absolutely nothing changes (benefits or otherwise).

next we start celebrating jurors and thanking them for the service they provide. maybe some actual perks or rewards (jurors discount?), public info campaign reminding people it’s their duty in a democracy and people should be willing happy and proud to serve. we’ve all been judged fairly or unfairly in those same courtrooms (or elsewhere) in our lives. don’t we want to return the favor (or correct the mistake by serving impartiality following instruction and considering all the facts).

or a diversity campaign! we can’t have one homogenous group of jurors deciding everybody’s fate. if you’re a minority or literally a whatever job/hobby/interest wouldn’t you want one of your peers on your jury deciding your fate !? then go down and take your turn doing that for someone in your community so someone else does the same for you.

hm i think i would make an excellent politician besides all the winning elections stuff.

-1

u/[deleted] 10h ago

[deleted]

2

u/OurCrewIsReplaceable 9h ago

Great point, my peer!

43

u/RRZ006 11h ago

The average person isn’t very bright or well read/educated and I have to assume juries skew downwards to some degree.

14

u/The_Void_calls_me 10h ago

I mean there's a whole joke in that regard that juries are made up of people too stupid to get out of jury duty

0

u/TerribleBudget 8h ago

And bored people and people who want to get out of a day of work if they are still getting paid.

1

u/Gloomy-Welcome-6806 6h ago

Why would bored people go to jury duty? That makes no sense.

Why would someone want to get out of doing work where you have tasks and things to pass the time instead of doing the most boring thing imaginable and sitting there all day listening to debates?

2

u/TerribleBudget 6h ago

Why would bored people go to jury duty? That makes no sense.

Because it's something novel and different?

Why would someone want to get out of doing work where you have tasks and things to pass the time instead of doing the most boring thing imaginable and sitting there all day listening to debates?

Clearly you like your job. Congratulations. I'm happy for you.

I'm actually fairly amused that I was downvoted for things that are true just because people can't imagine that other people live different lives and have different interests.

4

u/Placesbetween86 10h ago

I hate to break it to you, but they actually don't. Juries are typically older and have higher income and education than the average American. Childcare is frequently claimed as a hardship that keeps people from serving. People whose kids are already adults but still healthy enough not to have a lot of health issues (40-60 range) are the most represented in our juries.

29

u/mantis_tobaggan-md 11h ago

A jury of our “peers” in America is a fucking scary thought.

26

u/slptodrm 11h ago

it pains me that this is supposedly the best system we can come up with, and we put innocent peoples' lives at their whim.

16

u/haskell_rules 10h ago

The good news is that we have studied psychological manipulation of the weak-minded so thoroughly that if you spend enough money on a talented lawyer you can convince a below average intelligence person of almost anything.

8

u/Dustin- 9h ago

You might even convince people that it's only weak-minded, below average intelligence people that can be convinced of almost anything instead of even quite intelligent people.

2

u/BeakyDoctor 11h ago

There are definitely better systems out there, the US just won’t switch to them.

At least jury nullification has been used to good effect the past couple of years

3

u/RedYellowHoney 10h ago

What is juror nullification, exactly? Sorry – legal dunce here. I come here to learn.

6

u/Stewart_Games 10h ago

You can rule not guilty if you perceive the law itself to be unfair. So like a flock camera vandalism case where even if it was technically destruction of property, the property itself violates personal freedom and privacy so you can rule "not guilty" as a way to argue against the legality of surveillance.

2

u/Supercoolguy7 4h ago

Or like you think a white guy did in fact beat up a black guy, but you don't like black guys so you vote not guilty

1

u/[deleted] 2h ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BeakyDoctor 5h ago

Basically a juror’s ability to rule not guilty at any point, regardless of the facts of the case. It is usually used in cases where the law is perceived as unfair, or the prosecution is seen as malicious.

0

u/Ordinary-Egg-56 9h ago

really now, and what system is better?

2

u/BeakyDoctor 4h ago

The mixed panel/lay judge system is one. You still have a jury of peers, but you also have three professional judges. A conviction needs a majority and must include a professional judge. Though this system is also inquisitorial and not adversarial, so the mixed panel is much more involved.

0

u/Ordinary-Egg-56 9h ago

what are u talking about? are you trying to be edgy or ignorant?

the system (as it’s ideally supposed to work) is great.

we know what the problems are but they refuse to fix them.

and that’s just the system in general.

trust me you want a jury of your peers. the problem of course, is conservatives.

destroying education and spreading disinformation and lies. like no matter what thread your on in whatever subreddit your on, if there’s a problem being discussed the root cause is always conservatism (aka authoritarianism).

1

u/slptodrm 2h ago

uhh, no.

10

u/burlycabin 10h ago

The only time I got to serve on a jury, it was actually a really good experience. It was a civil disobedience case and everyone on the jury took it very seriously and we all got along great. I'm sorry your experience was different.

5

u/Eric_Senpai 9h ago

The jury I served in Massachusetts was ALL white people with bachelor's, masters, and phds. I was a college student, was really hoping they'd take me out if the pool for being Asian but I guess I was the wildcard. It was a lot of smart deliberation about facts pertaining to the alleged crime and evidence.

3

u/bkgn 7h ago

I was on a jury for a clear-cut case of stranger rape, and the old women on the jury were blaming the victim for being raped in her sleep by a complete stranger. Trying to say she led the rapist on somehow. Thankfully them being so dumb also made them fairly easy to persuade.

3

u/Practical-Positive34 11h ago

Yeah reality smacks you in the face real quick sometimes huh? I always make up weird ass medical reasons to get out of that selection process. No fucking thanks!

5

u/Prior_Pickle1758 11h ago

bro we need you on the jury lmao

3

u/Beaglescout15 7h ago

Yeah when I was put into the courtroom for jury questions I thought about how I could get out of it, but then I thought that as a reasonably intelligent person, I would want me on my jury.

2

u/Working-Glass6136 8h ago

I had the same exact experience. Served once, and I was excited to be educated (not to mention I was working minimum wage, so I wasn't missing much). All to realize that one person can basically control the whole thing and everyone else just wants to go home.

24

u/Thewal 12h ago

I'm pretty sure that last one ends up being the solution to most hung juries.

34

u/FishfortheElectorate 11h ago

The last jury I was on had nine people saying guilty and three saying not guilty. After all the back and forths about the evidence, it seemed like we weren’t going to come to a decision.

Then one of the people who was saying guilty basically said that he was never changing his mind, and then two more said the same.

Then one of the not guilty voters said he didn’t feel strongly enough to keep everyone there all night and changed his vote to guilty. The two remaining not guilty votes immediately followed suit, and we were out of there within about twenty minutes.

70

u/Ok-Selection2208 11h ago

That seems like a failure of the justice system. People who will decide the fate of someone’s life based on whether they want to go home early are lazy and don’t deserve to be a part of society.

21

u/Marcus_Aurelius71 11h ago

I think a big improvement would be to allow for hung juries. Basically unanimity is needed for the guilty verdict, if there is a hung jury then its acquittal. Makes sense from the perspective you are innocent until proven guilty. If you can't be proven guilty, then by the eyes of the law you are still innocent.

14

u/TerribleBudget 8h ago

Have you met some of the jurors? Some people get off on the idea that they can hold power over 11 other people just by saying something contrary.

7

u/Substantial_Dish_887 9h ago

so you only need to convince 1 person on a jury to be innocent but the entire jury for guilty?

and you don't see problem with that idea?

then again jury trials in general just seem like a bad idea when you begin to actually disect them.

2

u/PerformanceOver8822 6h ago

Well you are innocent until proven guilt.

All 12 should start with " this person is innocent" in their heads.

3

u/RealisticQuality7296 8h ago

No one should have to convince anyone on a jury of a defendant’s innocence. Seems pretty obvious that if a prosecutor can’t convince 12 people that the defendant is guilty then there’s clearly reasonable doubt.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/rand0m_task 11h ago

As much as I emotionally hate this idea.. you are 100% correct.

2

u/Marcus_Aurelius71 10h ago

Just wondering why?

3

u/rand0m_task 10h ago

Because in cases like this, the emotional side of my brain tells me that she is without a doubt guilty and it would be a miscarriage of justice to let her walk free.

The rationale part says that I don’t know all of the actual facts, and if it can’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt that someone is responsible for a crime, they shouldn’t serve time for it.

Kind of drives the cognitive dissonance in me a bit lol.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/GetInTheKitchen1 11h ago

not true, that's really the failure of the society that produces those corrupt people. I think it is almost impossible to design a fair justice system that takes corrupt people into account. Who will watch the watchmen? You can't do much with corrupt people like that, life is fucked like that.

1

u/FishfortheElectorate 9h ago

Yeah, it was a small potatoes case, but we had been at it all day at that point. When it happened, I was surprised that the not guilty voters changed so quickly. Once the first one said he didn’t feel that strongly about it, the other two switched immediately.

1

u/YouGlittering9156 5h ago

One thing that makes jury duty an issue, is that you don't get paid. There should be a legal requirement to be paid by your employer if you work full time, or by the state.

People shouldn't have the thought, "I need to get out of here and get back to work to pay my bills" while their only focus should be on the trial and verdict.

2

u/Prior_Pickle1758 11h ago

which one was you

1

u/Salt-Lingonberry-853 7h ago

That's absolutely despicable. "I'm bored here so I'm gonna destroy this person's life."

3

u/Automatic-Cut-5567 8h ago

It's crazy reading yalls stories. I was on jury duty for a case of self-defense. Lady shot her BF a couple hours after he beat her black n blue(not the first time). Despite a bunch of people getting booted for bias, all of us that got picked went 'not guilty' without much debate. There was even one chick who had that karen-y works for your HOA vibe, and she agreed too.

1

u/NoThanksGoodSir 49m ago

Those kind of arguments should get people in serious legal trouble because they fundamentally taint the justice system. Of course the last one is something people will just not say aloud, but at least that makes it harder to get multiple people to switch off that mindset because they can't essentially collude.

81

u/VibeComplex 12h ago

What do you do in that situation if it affects the judgement? Tell the judge?

179

u/HorrorGrapefruit9389 12h ago

We spoke to the judge, who very concisely explained all that mattered was evidence, after that and a few hours of convincing we got her to change her mind.

98

u/Zombatico 12h ago

Jesus christ. She already admitted "the evidence says not quilty" and it took HOURS to convince her to change her vote.

Some people fundamentally do not give a shit about reality or facts or truth. It's all feels and beliefs for them. Magical religious faith-based type of thinking.

9

u/TheNatural14063 11h ago

Another reason out of many why we should well paid and well educated (trained in law) professional juries selected from a wide variety of races, nationalities, class backgrounds, ages, etc with an even amount of men and women.

23

u/Dramatic-Tackle5159 11h ago

Oh yeah, professional juries.

No way that could possibly end poorly lmao

1

u/Egad86 9h ago

Not to mention narrowing the juror pool so drastically would mean cases would take decades to get into court.

2

u/TheNatural14063 11h ago

The OJ Simpson jury rushed their decision because they were tired of being there and wanted to get back to their regular lives. Many people think justice wasn't fairly delivered in that case because of jurors rushing the decision in deliberation and wanting to go home.

As it stands now, jury duty is a huge inconvenience for many Americans. The average American lives paycheck to paycheck and wealth inequality is on the rise. If I missed a couple paychecks like many Americans, issues would happen. You also have issues where you get people on juries who don't want to be there not due to financial reasons but due to other reasons who sabotage the process. And then sometimes, you get really dumb people on juries who shouldn't be deciding cases

Professional juries well paid and well trained mitigates this issue.

10

u/c-dy 10h ago edited 10h ago

Your idea is missing the point of the system. Either you use juries composed of any citizen  or you don't.

Otherwise, just fix the compesation and labor protections. The whole framework doesn't need to be organized as it is now.

4

u/Reagalan 8h ago

I'm reminded of a case in Wales during the Satanic Panic where the accused was alleged to have had this whole basement full of kids' corpses and was raping them and drinking blood and all these outlandish things. Zero evidence. Case went on for months, prosecutor built an insanely elaborate narrative to explain why there was, again, zero evidence.

Jury ended up convicting just to get out of there. The defendant (the true victim here) spent 20 years in jail as a convicted pedophile and had to register as an SO for life.

All to say, I agree with you.

2

u/AdminsFluffCucks 11h ago

Prosecutors would never allow for that.

0

u/TheNatural14063 11h ago

OJ Simpson prosecutors might have preferred it. The jury in that case rushed deliberations because they wanted to go home. Many people feel justice wasn't fairly delivered on that case because jurors wanted to go home.

If I was a prosecutor I would want a jury of jurors who want to be there who don't feel pressured to go home and rush decisions because they are well compensated financially, are screened for any character issues and well trained in the law.

As it stands now, jury duty is a huge inconvenience for many Americans. The average American lives paycheck to paycheck and wealth inequality is on the rise. If I missed a couple paychecks like many Americans, issues would happen. You also have issues where you get people on juries who don't want to be there not due to financial reasons but due to other reasons who sabotage the process. And then sometimes, you get really dumb people on juries who shouldn't be deciding cases

Professional juries well paid and well trained mitigates this issue.

If I'm called on a case Im trying to end it as soon as possible so I can make my bills. I don't get paid jury duty leave

2

u/doublepint 9h ago

If I'm called on a case Im trying to end it as soon as possible so I can make my bills. I don't get paid jury duty leave

If this is your stance while serving out your civic duty, I hope if you do end up requiring a jury, you get one with peers that have a similar perspective.

1

u/TheNatural14063 9h ago

If I am ever being put on trial, I am requesting a bench trial. I would rather put my fate in the hands of a judge who knows the law and is getting paid well to be there than inconvenience others to sit on a jury who will possibly miss a rent payment or a mortgage payment in a society where the average American lives paycheck to paycheck because jurors arent paid enough and employers arent forced to pay 100% full salary/days pay while someone is out for each day of jury duty. I dont want my jurors wanting to rush out, or not paying attention, because they dont make enough money to be there...Give me the judge.

Many Americans cannot afford to miss work for a jury trial and any system that forces people to suffer and risk being unable to make bills is an unjust system.

Now if say, jury duty paid someones average salary or daily wage for being there, and one doesnt lose a single cent in pay, then Im ok with it. Or something like a minimum of $250 a day tax free or something (factor in average cost of living in the area). But the current system is not morally defensible in a society where housing, a living wage, healthcare, etc arent human rights simply given to people for existing here.

1

u/WriterV 10h ago

Magical religious faith-based type of thinking.

Don't even need any of that. Even atheists can make decisions based on vibes. Rationality requires thinking outside of your impulsive emotions. That gut feeling can be right sometimes, but not always.

2

u/chinstrap 10h ago

Yes, but this idea that "that's what I believe" is irrefutable seems to me like it comes out of religious faith.

1

u/WriterV 9h ago

Sure, but the basis is the same.

Point is, I think we should be more wary of that being an issue among people in general. It's important to not react impulsively to matters of judgement like this, regardless of what the situation is or what drives your emotional reactions.

→ More replies (3)

58

u/PrussiaK89 12h ago

Is your name Juror #8?

30

u/AriaTheTransgressor 11h ago

That's such a Juror #3 thing to say.

4

u/Varron 11h ago

Woah Juror #2, not cool at all

1

u/PuckSenior 6h ago

Should have gone with calling him #10. #2 doesn’t really make sense

1

u/Varron 6h ago

Such a #7 thing to say

1

u/PuckSenior 6h ago

I dont even like sports though

6

u/ScreamingVoid14 11h ago

If #12 would stop chewing gum so loudly, maybe we could focus on getting out of this room.

1

u/PrussiaK89 19m ago

This comment weirdly sent me into a 20 minute moment of introspection as to who people see me as in public. Thank you.

3

u/lahimatoa 11h ago

Jesus fuck some people are very stupid.

3

u/rbobby 12h ago

And this judge specifically said "to a moral certainty" and defined it. That juror's 'I just know it' doesn't survive that test.

I've heard these sorts of instructions to juries a couple of times and this one seems on par. And the judge did not seemed put out at all by this... an honest attempt to help the jury do its job.

1

u/Itwao 10h ago

Heard from a family members experience. There was one juror who, at the start, was so absolutely convinced the guy was guilty. Day one, zero evidence, guilty.

As the days went on, and more evidence made it clear the guy was guilty (including VIDEO OF HIM DOING IT), suddenly this guy flips to innocent. Absolutely refused to participate in deliberation. Basically just crossed his arms and kept saying "Nope. He's innocent. I don't care what the video showed, he's innocent."

Took them two entire days. They talked to the judge and all he said was to deliberate further. The guy ended up switching back to guilty, but not because he was convinced. He was tired of everybody else yelling at him and was very upset that he was forced to agree.

People are stupid when it comes to jury duty.

30

u/TehSeksyManz 12h ago

Could someone have gotten her kicked off of the jury somehow? Clearly she wasn't a reasonable person. 

35

u/Not-your-lawyer- 12h ago edited 12h ago

Yes.

Jurors can weight the evidence however they please [[e.g., "I think all fifteen eyewitnesses are lying, but the defendant seemed believable"]], but when they're sworn in they agree to faithfully apply that evidence to the instructions provided by the judge. They can be removed if the judge finds out they're not.

BUT the judge can only find out if other jurors report them. And even then the first remedy is just warning the person and admonishing them to follow the rules. If they keep it up, they get removed.

If no one reports anything, you get a hung jury.

If all the jurors end up agreeing with them, you get a conviction or an acquittal.

19

u/bonecheck12 12h ago

It depends on what they say as well. The other jurors can't just report to the judge "they're being unreasonable" and then the judge kicks them out. They have to say something like "he's guilty because he's black" or something crazy like that. Otherwise you'd have judges kicking out all sorts of jurors just based on the fact that it's 8-1 in the jury votes and nobody wants that.

2

u/RedYellowHoney 10h ago

Hence the judge in the Clancy trial refusing the defense's request to dismiss that one juror.

7

u/panhellenic 10h ago

if you've ever served on a jury, then you know the system gives them the utmost deferential treatment. I think a lot of people are intimidated by a judge and so don't want to speak up when things get hinky in the jury room. The judge really does want fairness (obvy there are some exceptions) and they *really* don't want a case overturned bc of some juror behavior they didn't know about at the time but could have nipped it in the bud had they known.

I've been in the position of having to tell the judge about something a juror did, and I spoke to her clerk, not the judge herself, so no black robe anxiety. She thanked me and said the judge really did need to know about the behavior (which ended up causing a mistrial).

11

u/hodorhodor12 11h ago

I know there's no perfect system, but a system that allows for blatant such stupidity to land someone in prison for life can't be the best system.

2

u/SaltMage5864 11h ago

I was on one where a couple of people said he must be guilty because nobody is that stupid. Not a claim anyone could make today

2

u/YouGlittering9156 5h ago

That's insane...

I think the important thing he harps on is "I've told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until they are proved guilty, and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor..."

Just like in your situation, the woman needed to listen to that advice.

1

u/ExtremelyOkay8980 12h ago

Infuriating 🤦🏻‍♀️

1

u/datagamma 12h ago

Ha. The definition of unreasonable

1

u/ILikeBeans86 12h ago

The ol Ronald Reagan defense

1

u/recycledcup 10h ago

I was on a jury and two people didn’t want to find the defendant guilty because they didn’t want to separate a parent from their children.

It was very open close case, it took hours to get these two to finally agree to a guilty verdict. The judge came to us afterwards and was like, “what took so long? This should have been quick.”

Turns out, we were not informed this as it could have skewed our opinions, the defendant was wanted for other charges related to drug trafficking and they needed him to stay in town. The offense in which I was a juror for involved him fleeing the area.

1

u/Still-Anything5678 9h ago

the Ronald Reagan approach

1

u/sansasnarkk 9h ago

I remember watching the staircase documentary and the defense was testing how the general public would react to THE preeminent blood splatter expert give testimony supporting the defendants innocence and they all were like "idk I can barely understand him." He was speaking plain English with a Chinese accent. Some were just blatantly racist.

Like, I'm sorry, I understand why we do it the way we do but I have no interest in being judged by the general public. They're morons.

1

u/KingBooRadley 8h ago

Let me guess what color she was, and what color he was . . .

1

u/HorrorGrapefruit9389 8h ago

Both white.

1

u/KingBooRadley 7h ago

I'm shocked.

1

u/TeaInASkullMug 4h ago

the kind of people you want when you catch false allegations.

181

u/Equivalent_One5900 13h ago edited 12h ago

I’ve been a juror for a murder trial and had the same shit going on in the jury room where people were coming up with theories and im like look our job is not to prosecute or defend we are here to hear the facts given—if the prosecution didn’t do a good job of that that’s not our fault. We shouldn’t have to piece it together ourselves.

27

u/strychnineman 10h ago

Exactly this.

The jury doesn’t decide if they think someone is guilty. They determine if the prosecution proved they were.

It’s maddening to try to explain this to people who say “but I think…”. Nope. You don’t get to fill in gaps and guess. The question is: Did. The. State. Prove. Their. Case.

7

u/GrassyNoob 9h ago

The question is: Did. The. State. Prove. Their. Case.

"But I think the law is wrong." Trumps that sentence.

0

u/Glasseshalf 1h ago

Well then you would have been removed from the pool unless you lied

2

u/Lepelotonfromager 4h ago

Although I'd argue the opposite is partially true, if you feel as the jury the defense did a poor job of making their arguments and presenting the evidence and you genuinely feel like there might be some innocence you should be willing to posit some theoriest the defence didn't. Ultimately the jury are the last line of ensuring justice and also preventing injustice.

There are some cases where it seems like the judge, prosecutor and defense just don't give a shit and people get railroaded because they've got a backlog of cases.

1

u/ApprehensiveLand848 9h ago

but if someone is gonna die or go to jail for life over it and something dont make sense it hard to remain that objective and not think about things

that how people are

3

u/Equivalent_One5900 8h ago

Also think about if you were a defendant. Would you feel it is fair that people have personal feelings that they are bringing into the deliberation?

I remember the district attorney making the analogy that if enough puzzle pieces are in place can you tell what the jigsaw puzzle is. But if the pieces are there, but flipped over, in the wrong spot, completely missing, not attach to neighboring pieces, it could be hard to piece together the picture. You may know what the picture maybe about but you are not sure. This is what happened in the jury trial I was a juror for. There was evidence but the evidence did not show a story clearly.

As an objective story it’s not my duty to fill in the blanks. That would be unfair for me as a juror to create my own theory. The state had a theory to argue and if it did not make sense that is not the jury’s fault.

2

u/Equivalent_One5900 8h ago

There’s nothing wrong about having subjective feelings but as a juror it is your civic duty to be objective. Voir dire weeds out the possible bias that we all have we are human and ultimately an objective jury should be seated

-5

u/[deleted] 11h ago edited 11h ago

[deleted]

25

u/Turbulent-Pay1150 11h ago

No. If the state did not explicitly prove the case you need to return not guilty. It’s the states job to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s the juries job to evaluate the evidence they are presented with by the prosecution and the defense and select the best verdict the judge told them they are restricted to (guilty of a, b, or c… not guilty).

3

u/Equivalent_One5900 11h ago

thank you for explaining that so well--i was struggling with it.

14

u/ThatThar 11h ago

That's not how it works. If the state didn't do "do a good job of explaining why the person should be guilty", that means that they did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and you therefore must find the defendant not guilty.

"We don't have enough information to decide on a verdict, let's do it again" isn't an option.

8

u/AdminsFluffCucks 11h ago

Not guilty is the default verdict. If you can't decide on guilty by the evidence presented, then not guilty is what you should be voting.

4

u/panhellenic 10h ago

Umm the standard is "presumption of innocence." That's where you start.

3

u/slptodrm 11h ago

this is r/law, get out, you're drunk

2

u/Academic_Flatworm752 10h ago

No lol that’s not how the works. If the prosecution can’t prove their case, it’s a not guilty agreement from the jury. But I guess a bunch of people already pointed out how fucking dumb this statement was

0

u/Miserable_Site_850 11h ago

Nice one detective!

16

u/nyglthrnbrry 12h ago

I always thought jury duty could be annoying, but you'r comment made me realize it could easily be my own personal hell

2

u/a_piginacage 12h ago

Was for me. Very eye opening though.

1

u/TRVTH-HVRTS 5h ago

Jury deliberation is final boss level of Group Projects

39

u/Rockergage 13h ago

Fuck I did a mock jury about eminent domain acquisition final evaluation and we were trying to determine, “how much should this group get for their land.” I had one woman who said, “what about the mineral rights- (long uninteresting spiel about friend getting screwed about it)” and I had to restrain myself and try to be nice when I explained “if there was valuable minerals under this shitty church it still wouldn’t matter because the land isn’t zoned industrial mining.” Which was never brought up and shouldn’t be considered.

2

u/man_eating_mt_rat 11h ago

But jurors can have a moral objection to the law itself and vote based on that. But our so called justice system isn't real loud about that.

1

u/endless_shrimp 8h ago

Zoning can change though?

1

u/Rockergage 7h ago

It could but it’s not and won’t. For one because it’s near a lot of pedestrian houses, two because they are old need to destroy and redevelop the whole land, and three because there isn’t any minerals worth a damn underneath it because you don’t randomly find valuable minerals and resources hidden underneath a mega church that has existed for decades suddenly.

The issue was she created an imaginary issue that was not relevant to the case at hand that nobody brought up. I’m not interested in rehashing the entire lawsuit but for a case like this it was the church thought they should get X and the transit authority thought they get Y. Church incorrectly asserted they should get more because they believed they deserved to have it fully replaced with a new building rather than what eminent domain is which is what the property is worth.

98

u/Odd_Ninja5801 13h ago

I was on a jury once where some of the jurors ignored the fact that the defendant was guilty based purely on their own testimony during the trial. But because they didn't trust the evidence of the victims, they refused to find them guilty.

Mind boggling.

42

u/Coolgrnmen 12h ago

It’s better to let a guilty person go free than imprison an innocent person.

62

u/el-mago2 13h ago

Have you never heard of faulty self incrimination? There are loads of cases of people admitting to crimes they didnt commit. Admission of guilt cannot be used alone as evidence of a crime

23

u/jonniezombie 13h ago

He is saying the opposite of that. The jury believed the person on trial, when they gave witness testimony that they didn’t do it. They believed this more than the evidence against them.

10

u/gh0stwriter1234 12h ago

Depends on what the evidence is... if its merely circumstantial evidence that might not be enough. Because it comes down their word vs the other person's.

I know someone that nullified a drug charges case, because they could not prove the person had put them shrooms in their backpack themselves and it wasn't just stashed there during a party by someone else.

There was no video of them putting the shrooms in there or having them in their possession only they were found in their backpack which was not with them at the time. Basically there was not 100% certainty that they put them there.

39

u/Odd_Ninja5801 13h ago

Can't really go into details too much. Suffice to say, one of the victims said they did x and y, and the defendant basically admitted that they did x and y. There was physical evidence to support it as well. Only x and y was needed for a conviction, but there was also evidence they did a, b, c, d and e as well. They didn't admit to any of the rest.

Jurors ignored that x and y was enough to convict, because they didn't believe the victims about a, b, c, d and e.

2

u/UncleBlanc 12h ago

What was the outcome? Did you follow or did they switch?

-7

u/SoylentRox 12h ago

Note that if "a, b, c, d, e" included obvious lies disproven by evidence, and there was no physical evidence for x and y, and the defendant didn't actually admit to x or y, then it's fair to not believe the alleged victims.

26

u/TIMPA9678 12h ago

Yes a completely different scenario would in fact be different

1

u/sundalius 10h ago

You’re assuming that this person is honestly relaying the Defendant’s testimony for no reason. Clearly the jury split over it. The jurors that disagree with the commenter who shared their opinion would say “obviously the defendant didn’t confess.”

It’s uncritical acceptance of a juror who was one half of a group that saw the same trial and came to diametrically opposed conclusions.

8

u/triangle60 13h ago

Please tell me where in the rules of evidence or under what case it says that a person's testimony by itself can't be used alone as evidence of a crime.

15

u/grap112ler 12h ago

When the testimony is made under duress or torture. Also if that person is clinically insane or developmentally disabled, etc etc.

2

u/Loud-Competition6995 12h ago

You forget the third equally likely option, the defendant is an idiot and misunderstands that their actions don’t actually meet the definition of the crime they’re accused of.

0

u/Gloomy-Cover7669 12h ago

In that case it wouldn't even be admitted into evidence.

4

u/grap112ler 12h ago

It shouldn't be, but sometimes does. There are loads of very low IQ developmentally delayed folk that have been sentenced for crimes they did not commit because they just go along with the suggestions of investigators.

2

u/Gloomy-Cover7669 12h ago

Oh I know about the studies. Modern police interrogation techniques are too good and produce false confessions at an alarming rate. People of normal cognitive ability are not immune.

2

u/Immediate_Gain_9480 11h ago edited 11h ago

Unus testis, nullus testis. Its a rather old legal rule from roman law that i think is abolished in most of the US if it ever applied. But is still used in a few countries. I think thats were the confusion is from.

4

u/Legal-Literature-696 12h ago

It’s called prima facia evidence. In order to go forward with a charge against a defendant there must be prima facia evidence that the defendant committed the crime without the defendant’s admissions used to establish that fact. This is a motion brought before trial commences. NYL and not giving legal advice.

3

u/piscina_de_la_muerte 12h ago

To add on to this, as an example, consider if someone walks into a police station and admits to killing John Doe. Without police establishing that John Doe exists, and is in fact dead, how could you charge the person who confessed to the "killing".

0

u/OldBrownShoe22 12h ago

A proper admission to all elements of a crime is prima facie evidence of the crime though.

4

u/VaATC 12h ago

Then they just need to collect the physical evidence to ground the case in the physical realm.

1

u/OldBrownShoe22 12h ago

No, thats not required.

3

u/VaATC 11h ago

So where is the corpus delecti coming from?

1

u/OldBrownShoe22 11h ago

From people who dont admit to crimes, lol.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/sundalius 12h ago

Well yeah. That’s the point of juries. To determine credibility and weigh evidence to determine what the facts will be.

1

u/legal_stylist 10h ago

That’s entirely legitimate, though. A juror is entitled to believe some, none or all of anyone’s testimony, or any combination thereof. A juror is perfectly entitled to credit the testimony of the defendant over any number of purported victims’ testimony, or anyone else’s for that matter. A juror is even entitled to disbelieve all the testimony given, and base their determination on the rest of the evidence
Weighing the credibility of conflicting testimony is the heart of what the trier pf fact (ie, the jury) is charged to do.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/datagamma 12h ago

Frustrating. People are severely under education or aware of reason. The world must be a truly baffling place to these people. No wonder conspiracy theories abound.

We all use heuristics and bias or prejudice in our day to day. It’s shocking though when I see people being reasoned with who will not budge from unreasonable positions without a second thought and willful ignorance of data and evidence. Feelings and authority are far more compelling to people unfamiliar with critical thinking and rational argument.

Being stubborn and unreasonable used to be negative personality traits. The most belligerent of us have convinced themselves they are virtues.

3

u/Big-Constant-7289 11h ago

Ugh I was a juror on an alleged drunk driving trial and one of the jurors had a kid who just got their license and she would not let it go.  OH BUT IF MY BABY WAS ON THE ROAD? NO I KNOW BUT WHAT IF…. jfc we were all so mad at her. 

3

u/rand0m_task 11h ago

I was on the grand jury and people were thinking we were sending these people straight to jail and not to trial.

It was awful.

I rather be judged by the judge than a jury of my peers after that experience.

3

u/BleachedUnicornBHole 12h ago

I’m kind of wondering if one of the jurors went down a TikTok rabbit hole of conspiracies for this trial.

2

u/Gryzzlee 10h ago

It's weird that in this case the prosecution has to prove someone was sane and not the other way around with the defense proving they were insane.

Hard to prove something that none of her providers thought she was suffering from. And she refused to be an inpatient/outpatient to help specialists confirm if she did or didn't.

Why does the prosecution need to prove sanity in this case? It's weird as heck.

1

u/OrangeBird077 12h ago

Ultimately isn’t it up to the jurors whether or not they want to vote guilty or not guilty though?

Ethically of course people should vote according to the law, but there’s really nothing stopping someone from voting however they want regardless of what a judge says. The judge can’t put them in prison or order retaliation?

3

u/friend_jp 11h ago

Though probably rare against a juror, Contempt of Court is a thing.

1

u/WArslz 12h ago

I’m surprised it isn’t more common honestly. Especially now with the rise in interest of true crime and conspiracy theories

1

u/EyeSuccessful7649 12h ago

and the cause of her insanity of over with, so.

1

u/asher1611 9h ago

As a defense attorney it is always fascinating to me what theories jurors latch on to. Oftentimes it is stuff that me, the prosecutor, and the judge know doesn't matter under the law.

1

u/wibo58 8h ago

I think this is a scenario people aren’t thinking about. Could it be one hold out that thinks she’s guilty? Sure. But there’s also a possibility that 11 think she’s guilty and there’s one wackadoodle that keeps coming up with what if scenarios to justify a not guilty.

1

u/ToastyBB 8h ago

Sounds like 98% of the conversation surrounding this case on social media

1

u/richardcraniumIII 7h ago

I really lucked out when I was 20 years old and was a juror on a criminal case. Twelve people of different ages, sex, and races. Criminal case against a defendant that "shot at the cops". Long story short - all of us agreed that the police were lying. The evidence was clear in that regard. We got trashed in the media for our decision. We talked and talked and talked to get to our decision. There was one hold out but we were able to talk it out. This was in the 90s, though. Before social media.

1

u/Inevitable-Level-687 3h ago

I was lucky when I was on a jury i guess. Some absolute morons and assholes but whenever someone reminded them of reasonable doubt, or that we had to judge each count on its own merit, they listened.

0

u/whatlineisitanyway 12h ago

The only time I ever served on a jury the defense missed what I thought was an obvious way to bring reasonable doubt into the situation, but they didn't and they otherwise didn't prove reasonable doubt so their client was found guilty.

→ More replies (4)