Yes, of course it comes down to the juror’s judgment. That is, by definition, his/her role in the process. I also disagree that the instructions imply otherwise. A successful self defense argument based on that law requires the defendant to have had an actual real belief that there was an unlawful interference and that the force used was necessary to prevent such interference (subjective component - did the juror think the defendant actually had such belief)
AND
if the defendant did have that belief, was it reasonable (objective component - would a reasonable person in that instance have that same belief).
If the answer to either question above is “no” (in the juror’s opinion), then the juror should not accept the self-defense argument.
there is a very good reason for this. These instructions have been vetted by courts and government entities and are considered adequate and constitutional. ANY deviation from such instructions opens the door for either the prosecution or defense counsel to appeal based on improper jury instructions.
This is intriguing to me. I would also add to the “experts” representative peers to the accused, because sometimes there is a gulf between academic theory and actual lived experience. Not that one group would veto the other, but to supplant one kind of knowledge with the other.
I understand that is the case, and that is the problem. Consider the general rules of the Rittenhouse jury instructions:
the defendant believed that there was an actual or imminent unlawful interference with the defendant’s person;
and the defendant believed that the amount of force the defendant used or threatened to use was necessary to prevent or terminate the interference;
and the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable
The test of reasonable is the reasonable and prudent person. The determination of fact hinges on whether the defendant was reasonable and prudent. The ‘facts’ presented are his beliefs.
Rittenhouse and Zimmerman were not reasonable and prudent in any of their acts or reports. That is the issue not whether they got scared as a result of their actions.
Only about 2-3% of criminal cases in the U.S. go to trial across all jurisdictions. The majority are settled by a plea agreement, dismissal, etc. There aren’t enough judges and courtrooms to handle the caseload.
In fact, because the judge controls what evidence the jury can hear, and also controls what instructions they get, most “jury” trials in the US are basically decided by the judge, anyway. In countries that use judges instead of lay juries, you usually get a panel of judges, not just one. I’m sure results are more consistent in those countries.
The concern here, and especially here and now is that citizen juries are the sole remaining bulwark against a system of corrupted politicized police, corrupted politicized prosecutors, and a corrupted politicized judiciary.
I don’t know how much of Japan’s famous 99% conviction rate is accurate findings versus railroaded victims of government oppression. But I know what the ratio will be if the current USA does away with juries.
No I don’t. But I do think as things get worse a lot more juries are simply going to refuse to convict anybody. Regardless of the “facts” that may have been shown to them or the “laws” that might have been instructed to them.
When I looked it up previously, I wasn’t sure, but now I’ve found confirmation. In Japan, a situation that in the US would count as a guilty plea would count as a conviction.
Hence, that 99% rate should be compared to the 90%+ of cases that end in a plea deal PLUS the conviction rate at trial, rather than only the conviction rate at trial.
That doesn’t mean that Japan 's system doesn’t have issues, but it’s not a 99% to 50-60% comparison. It’s like 99% vs 95%.
In case it hasn’t been mentioned yet, there is no concept of a jury of one’s peers in the US. A “jury of one’s peers” is a British thing, and means that nobles will be tried by other nobles, and commoners tried by other commoners. Since everyone is a commoner in the US, the distinction is meaningless here.
If the cases being brought before them are bullshit, then the juries should refuse to indict. They hardly deserve some monumental praise for doing the very basic aspects of their jobs? The fact that we are so surprised that they are doing their jobs tells me there’s a problem here.
Well, as the old saying goes, “A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.” It is actually very unusual for a grand jury to go against the prosecution, especially since they don’t get to see any of the defense.
The saying does go that way, but in reality, 95% or more of federal indictments end in conviction, so it’s kind of BS.
It’s true that it would be easy for a prosecutor to secure an indictment in almost any case, but an indictment is only the start of a prosecutor’s journey. Prosecutors simply don’t waste their time indicting people who they aren’t certain they can prove the guilt of to the “beyond all reasonable doubt” standard.
As always going forward, we need to suffix any comments about what a government worker will do, won’t do, or typically does, with “… assuming they’re not simply part of the totalitarian takeover doing whatever the hell they want with malicious impunity”.
If one is only counting convictions and acquittals in the US , those plea bargains count as convictions as well. A “conviction rate” without more detail doesn’t really tell you anything - is it the conviction rate of cases that go to trial, is the conviction rate of all cases that are not dropped by the prosecution, is it the conviction rate for all arrests ? * And then once you know what is being used to calculate the conviction rate, you can determine if other factors are involved. I found some info at this site (The Ministry of Justice：Frequently Asked Questions on the Japanese Criminal Justice System) - I’ve seen similar statements elsewhere
In Japan, it is the prosecutors who decide whether or not to bring an indictment. According to the most recent statistics, the indictment rate is 37% (a figure obtained by dividing the number of indicted persons by the total number of indicted persons and non-indicted persons in all suspected criminal cases). The “conviction rate of more than 99%” represents the proportion of convicted persons divided by the number of indicted persons, i.e. those within the 37% rate mentioned above.
In order to avoid imposing an undue burden on innocent people for being involved in a trial, prosecutors, in practice, bring indictments only if there is a high probability of obtaining a conviction based on adequate evidence.
I’m pretty sure the US would have an after-trial conviction rate of over 95% if the weakest 63% of cases were dismissed before indictment.
But about the jurors being people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty - that presumes that jury duty is of course something that everyone wants to avoid. But that’s not true - for the most part, people want to completely avoid jury duty when it will have a financial impact on them - their job won’t pay them, they run their own business, they will have to find and pay for childcare/eldercare that isn’t normally needed. There are others who want to postpone because they are going on vacation or will be recovering from surgery but many, probably most , people don’t even try to avoid it.
* Different purposes call for different numbers - for example, in studies of recidivism in those released from prison, “convictions after trial” isn’t really the relevant number. If only 2% are reconvicted after a trial, but 70% plead guilty to a new crime , saying the recidivism rate is 2% is misleading.