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

[u/bendubberley_]

[u/Equivalent_One5900]

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.

[u/strychnineman → u/Equivalent_One5900]

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.

[u/GrassyNoob → u/strychnineman]

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

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

[u/Glasseshalf → u/GrassyNoob]

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

[u/Lepelotonfromager → u/Equivalent_One5900]

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.

[u/ApprehensiveLand848 → u/Equivalent_One5900]

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

[u/Equivalent_One5900 → u/ApprehensiveLand848]

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.

[u/Equivalent_One5900 → u/ApprehensiveLand848]

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

[u/Turbulent-Pay1150 → u/[deleted]]

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).

[u/Equivalent_One5900 → u/Turbulent-Pay1150]

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

[u/ThatThar → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/AdminsFluffCucks → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/panhellenic → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/slptodrm → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/Academic_Flatworm752 → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/Miserable_Site_850 → u/Equivalent_One5900]

Nice one detective!