PDA

View Full Version : Jury Deliberations


tstew
04-06-2012, 05:41 PM
Why do we have them? Seriously.

Hoovie
04-06-2012, 05:45 PM
For the accused to be judged by a jury of his peers.

Hoovie
04-06-2012, 05:46 PM
I guess I missed the "deliberations part"

Hoovie
04-06-2012, 05:48 PM
I think when the evidence is presented there often remain a lot of questions by the jury. The deliberations allow the jury to bounce these questions off other jurors to see what they missed.

tstew
04-06-2012, 06:07 PM
I guess what I'm asking. I just watched a documentary where the trial lasted several weeks. The jury received the case and after a few days came back and said they could not reach a unanimous verdict. The judge ordered them back into chambers to try again. For the first time I questioned the deliberation process.

My question is should the matter of guilt and innocence ultimately boil down to which side is more stubborn, persuasive, and able to impose its will on the other? I was just thinking that it is the duty of the attorneys to convince the jurors of its "conviction". If after an entire trial, a juror is convinced of guilt or innocence should they be thrown into a situation where someone else can convince them otherwise?

rgcraig
04-06-2012, 06:45 PM
So, you think after the closing arguments the jury should write their votes down? That almost makes sense.

tstew
04-06-2012, 06:48 PM
So, you think after the closing arguments the jury should write their votes down? That almost makes sense.

The thought had not occurred to me until today, but that is almost what I'm wondering. Is it advantageous to lock the 12 up in a room where stronger personalities, weaker personalities, frustration, stubbornness, persuasion, vendettas, and other elements could come into play? Would it be a terrible thing to present the case and have a jury of peers give their individual convictions based on the evidence they heard?

tstew
04-06-2012, 06:50 PM
So, you think after the closing arguments the jury should write their votes down? That almost makes sense.

By the way, that's the closest to a ringing endorsement I've ever received from you, Renda. :) j/k

commonsense
04-06-2012, 06:55 PM
Having served on more than one jury I would not totally toss out deliberations.

Hoovie
04-06-2012, 06:57 PM
I think they do need tAlk after the evidence is presented. I am sure there are things to work through, and even ask the court to clarify some of the presentations/evidence.

tstew
04-06-2012, 07:16 PM
I think they do need tAlk after the evidence is presented. I am sure there are things to work through, and even ask the court to clarify some of the presentations/evidence.

I understand. But couldn't they do this on an individual basis. I'm just wondering if there is not something inherently wrong with having members of a jury of your peers hear all the evidence and arguments, reach an individual conviction as to guilt or innocence, then have that changed over the course of days of stalemate and pressure. I'm wondering if at the very least there needs to be a cap on deliberations (measured in hours as opposed to days) just to insure that all the evidence is understood and considered but not long enough to have personal convictions changed out of duress, pressure, frustration, weakness, or any other thing that can arise in days of being locked into a room. At some point it seems it goes from deliberation to negotiation.

tstew
04-06-2012, 07:17 PM
Having served on more than one jury I would not totally toss out deliberations.

I'm not saying that the verdict has to be given right at the last gavel, but I'm just wondering if what we do works the way it should.

rgcraig
04-06-2012, 07:32 PM
By the way, that's the closest to a ringing endorsement I've ever received from you, Renda. :) j/k

Lol - - I think not! I've been on your side many times - -maybe I just haven't expressed it - ha!

I actually think you have a good point.

CC1
04-06-2012, 07:36 PM
I served as the jury foreman on a murder trial a few years ago. I found the deliberation process worked well.

When we were sent to deliberate my fellow jurors elected me the foreman (I think based on some leadership I showed in getting the bailiff to contact the judge about something inappropriate dealing with the defense team). My first action was to suggest that we take a blind vote to see where we were at on our thoughts about the verdict.

Our choices were guilty, not guilty, or guilty of manslaughter as an alternative to the murder charge. I asked a school teacher on the jury to act as the secretary. We each wrote our choice of the three on slips of paper and I gathered them all and gave them to our secretary to count.

After the first eight or so were "guilty" I thought this was going to be easy. However when all 12 votes were counted we had 10 guilty's and 2 not guilty. Interestingly nobody voted for manslaughter.

I said that I felt we should review the testimony and evidence and talk about it then vote again. While we were preparing to do that a business woman on the jury came to me and quietly said that she was almost certain the two not guilty's were a white retired guy and an 18 year old pregnant Hispanic girl. She said for me to continue the review and that she would talk to the retired guy as we did.

It took us around 4 hours to read the judges instructions, take that first vote, review the testimony and evidence, then vote again. On our second vote we were unanimous with 12 guilty votes.

I am Mr. Conservative. A real law and order guy but I have to tell you it was very emotional for me as the jury foreman to have to be the one to tell the judge, the courtroom, and especially the defendant (a 54 or 56 year old woman) that we had found the defendant guilty. I knew that because of her age she was going to spend the rest of her productive live in jail. However I was at peace because the verdict was correct and justice was served.

Hoovie
04-06-2012, 07:49 PM
Very cool CC1. So how much did you have to pay the two to change their votes??

CC1
04-06-2012, 07:52 PM
Very cool CC1. So how much did you have to pay the two to change their votes??

For the old guy two breakfast coupons at Denny's and for the pregnant Hispanic girl Salsa lessons.:thumbsup

RandyWayne
04-06-2012, 08:07 PM
I do believe the only times the deliberation system breaks down is when you have 4 or more women on the jury who watch Oprah and the defendant is a stud.

Norman
04-06-2012, 09:23 PM
I have been on a jury 3 times. The grand jury that is considering an indictment is allowed to ask questions of the attorneys, but during the actual trial, the jury is not allowed to ask questions. I think that needs to change. Sometimes all the available evidence is not presented to the jury. Also the jury can decide that a law is wrong but the attorney for the prosecution will not tell you that.

tstew
04-06-2012, 09:37 PM
I served as the jury foreman on a murder trial a few years ago. I found the deliberation process worked well.

When we were sent to deliberate my fellow jurors elected me the foreman (I think based on some leadership I showed in getting the bailiff to contact the judge about something inappropriate dealing with the defense team). My first action was to suggest that we take a blind vote to see where we were at on our thoughts about the verdict.

Our choices were guilty, not guilty, or guilty of manslaughter as an alternative to the murder charge. I asked a school teacher on the jury to act as the secretary. We each wrote our choice of the three on slips of paper and I gathered them all and gave them to our secretary to count.

After the first eight or so were "guilty" I thought this was going to be easy. However when all 12 votes were counted we had 10 guilty's and 2 not guilty. Interestingly nobody voted for manslaughter.

I said that I felt we should review the testimony and evidence and talk about it then vote again. While we were preparing to do that a business woman on the jury came to me and quietly said that she was almost certain the two not guilty's were a white retired guy and an 18 year old pregnant Hispanic girl. She said for me to continue the review and that she would talk to the retired guy as we did.

It took us around 4 hours to read the judges instructions, take that first vote, review the testimony and evidence, then vote again. On our second vote we were unanimous with 12 guilty votes.

I am Mr. Conservative. A real law and order guy but I have to tell you it was very emotional for me as the jury foreman to have to be the one to tell the judge, the courtroom, and especially the defendant (a 54 or 56 year old woman) that we had found the defendant guilty. I knew that because of her age she was going to spend the rest of her productive live in jail. However I was at peace because the verdict was correct and justice was served.

That is interesting. I can imagine how weighty of a decision that is. I think 4 hours is pretty reasonable.
Do you think that if the jury was sequestered and deliberating for 4 days as opposed to 4 hours, some people might be willing to change their vote based on pressure or frustration?
Do you feel like the lady "working on" the retired guy is the best thing for justice?

CC1
04-06-2012, 11:03 PM
That is interesting. I can imagine how weighty of a decision that is. I think 4 hours is pretty reasonable.
Do you think that if the jury was sequestered and deliberating for 4 days as opposed to 4 hours, some people might be willing to change their vote based on pressure or frustration?
Do you feel like the lady "working on" the retired guy is the best thing for justice?

Tstew,

In my case the verdict was clear. There were two conservatives on the jury, myself and the retired guy. After the verdict they brought the DA prosecuting the case and the defense attorney in the jury room and told us we could now ask any questions we wished we could have asked during the trial. My first question was to the defense attorney and I asked why he allowed two men who identified ourselves as being conservative to be on the jury. His response was that his client was a 56 year old white woman accused of killing a 20something year old foreigner (Lebanese) and that the thought was that no white male conservative would want to send a 56 year old white woman to jail for killing some foreigner! I thought that was absurd but it actually was the case for the old retired guy I think until he reconsidered and must have known he was ignoring reality. I think the 18 year old Hispanic girl was just naive and sweet and probably hated to send anybody to jail.

So yes I think the sharp businesswoman talking to the old guy was a very good thing as he was clearly not making a judgment based on the evidence or logic.

I do agree with you that it is possible for persons on a jury that is deliberating for days to get frustrated and change their vote to bring things to a closure. However I bet that is very rare as most people are willing to contend for their position and won't change it unless they are convinced they are wrong.

I think the jury system has worked well for a very long time. Not only in the USA but in other countries before ours. I think with all of its flaws it is still much more likely to produce justice than a system where Judges decide cases. The O.J. Simpson trial was a black eye on the jury system as it became a matter of black folks / a minority jury showing "the man" up rather than about real justice but those instances are few and far between.

Praxeas
04-07-2012, 01:55 AM
The problem with doing it that way is old facts won't be as fresh in their mind but what will be fresh is the subjective emotional speeches lawyers give at the end of a trial and whoever was more appealing might win the day rather than the totality of the facts..

That is why they deliberate, to go over all the facts, discuss what they mean and whether or not there is any doubt

canam
04-07-2012, 03:12 AM
AS far as OJ being a black mark CC1 ? i just saw a report where it very well could have been his son that did it, he is very violent and has run ins with the law.

Titus2woman
04-07-2012, 03:47 AM
AS far as OJ being a black mark CC1 ? i just saw a report where it very well could have been his son that did it, he is very violent and has run ins with the law.


I dunno... when my brother killed someone it did not make me drive around with a gun to my head... Maybe we have forgotten the complete weirdness of that whole situation.

canam
04-07-2012, 05:56 AM
I dunno... when my brother killed someone it did not make me drive around with a gun to my head... Maybe we have forgotten the complete weirdness of that whole situation.

OJ the dummy, beats a murder rap, pulls a power play with a gun over some stupid sports memos and gets more time them he probably would have got for murder ! Now his daughter has been spending his pension like a drunken sailor and stopped paying his mortgage ,bout ready to forclose on his mansion in Florida.

Norman
04-08-2012, 11:00 PM
The jury system might not be perfect, but right now I can't think of anything better to replace it. We have humans involved regardless of how we do it, and humans make mistakes.

aegsm76
04-09-2012, 02:34 AM
I am reminded of a quote that I will modify here:

Juries deliberations are the worst way to settle a dispute, except for all of the other ways.

(With apologies to Churchill)

Hoovie
04-09-2012, 09:45 AM
My wife just received notification of jury duty... declined because of pregnancy... we'll see if they accept that.

Timmy
04-09-2012, 10:09 AM
My wife just received notification of jury duty... declined because of pregnancy... we'll see if they accept that.

Varies by court, I'm sure, and for some courts it might depend on the due date. I'd guess she'll be excused.

I wonder if Mrs. Duggar has ever served on a jury. :lol

RandyWayne
04-09-2012, 10:16 AM
I've never been on a jury. Is it anything like this yet?

http://www.zoomway.net/reviews5/kandor02.jpg

CC1
04-09-2012, 07:01 PM
AS far as OJ being a black mark CC1 ? i just saw a report where it very well could have been his son that did it, he is very violent and has run ins with the law.

That claim is by some yoyou selling a book he wrote. The DNA evidence was conclusive.