If jury’s were supposed to be fully “representative” they could pick names out of a hat and not bother with voir dire. Instead those with relevant prejudices are supposed to be excluded. Unfortunately Trumpland is so thick with vile bigots, some will sneak past the voir dire.
Haven’t you heard? Over the weekend Trump signed an executive order stating that it is now legal for any LEO to murder any black person, especially children, just for giggles.
Is thread-shitting all you’ve got left to offer anymore? How sad.
AFAIU, that’s incorrect. A day before, it was reported that it was one juror. But on the day of the mistrial declaration, it was reported that
“A majority of the jurors in the trail of Michael Slager, the former South Carolina police officer accused of murder in the shooting death of black motorist Walter Scott, are undecided about a verdict in the case, according to a note the jurors provided to the court on Monday.”
Are you just here because you enjoy spouting stupid, borderline non-sequitur shit no one thinks is clever or amusing? That’s all I’ve seen you do in recent memory. There have to be better uses for your time.
We got that memo a long long time ago.
I’d say about 1776 or so.
That fits. Trump is too stupid to realize he hasn’t been sworn in yet.
Has he literally ever done anything else? I can think of one thread where Drunky’s posts haven’t been a complete and utter waste of time and space, and that’s the Hearthstone thread. In literally every other example, he’s been nothing but an extremely low-level troll. Clothahump and Doorhinge are at least interesting in their inanity; how the fuck has this asshole stuck around this long?
They’re starting to lose patience with Drunky, though.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19834376&postcount=16
Require, say, 3/4 majority instead of unanimity. This would also encourage dissenting jurors to speak up.
What would a representative jury look like in this case? serious question. We wouldn’t have jury selection in the UK for a case like this, it really would be “out of a hat” Wouldn’t jury selection merely get you a smarter strata of prejudice that is able to negotiate the questioning?
It’s my understanding that he’s facing federal charges after the state’s finished. With three trials, I wouldn’t lose too much sleep worrying he’ll go free. He’ll end up in somebody’s cage before it’s finished, and IIRC one of them isn’t keen on that “parole” thingie.
Hopefully one of the board’s lawyer’s can fill us in on how this works. What happens if the state convicts? Does the federal trial still happen?
For first degree murder?
Have you seen twelve angry men?
Have you ever been on a jury? The chances of there being more than three thoughtful, intelligent, perceptive jurors is one is almost a flip of a coin.
That was exactly my point. Did you read the post I was responding to? The one where the poster wanted the jury to be “representative” of the city.
It would still be better to have only 9 white people on the jury versus the current 11. It would at least decrease the chance of us getting in this predicament.
But by requiring unanimity, this puts intense pressure on jurors to “stop being that lone obstructionist one” and make everyone else on the jury happy. If a dissenting juror knows that he/she can object, and that it won’t hamstring the entire process, he or she will feel more free to do so - and it becomes more likely that several others will voice their internal views likewise to join him/her.
Requiring only 3/4 majority would also help to stymie stealth jurors, who may all along secretly have plans to sabotage the jury by being that lone dissenting vote. It reduces the power of stealth or unscrupulous jurors.
The entire point of having a jury set up that way in our legal system is to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
Many cases with a deadlocked jury would not be retried, so a deadlock is almost as good as an acquittal. If you have a hung jury, where it’s split 50/50, then it’s probably not worth retrying the case, but when it’s just one holdout that pretty much admits that he is just being stubborn in the face of the evidence, then a retrial makes sense.
… as I pointed out above, the majority of jurors in the end in this case were undecided. The prosecutors stated that they are definitely going to retry.
I know you pointed that information out earlier in the thread, but if nothing else, your cite is from before the mistrial was entered. I also question whether they actually meant majority as in 50%+1, or “majority” as in the unanimity that is required to convict, I am thinking the latter.
In any case, the information that is newer and more up to date than your cite, specifically says that it was one, and only one juror who would not vote to convict.