Found another bizarre Facebook story about how a jury in Ohio was able to overrule a judge’s decision and also find a man non-guilty without a unanimous jury decision, instead voting 7 to 5 for a non-guilty verdict.
Now I know Judge’s have a lot of leeway in their court rooms over what happens, and maybe overruling the Judge on an evidence decision might work, but actually somehow allowing the judge to agree to not allow a unanimous jury decision seems incredibly farfetched.
This being GQ, the answer to your question is no. I suspect that this is supposed to be some sort of parody or analogy to what a politically minded Facebook poster believes is happening in the Senate with regard to the Trump impeachment trial.
Even believing Jury Nullification is valid doesn’t mean they jury gets to make up the rules. In the real world, a criminal trial jury voting 5 to 7 either way, or even 11 to 1, and unable to to reach unaminity would be a hung jury and the defendant could face another trial with another jury.
One of the reasons the 19th amendment was repealed was the prosecutors were unable to get convictions in a lot of bootlegger cases – upwards of 70% flat acquittal towards the end – rendering the whole idea pretty moot.
In California, at least, civil trials require only 9 to 3 or better to reach a verdict, in keeping with the “proponderance of evidence” vs. the “beyond a shadow of a doubt” requirement for a criminal trial. The civil case I was juror on reached a verdict on a 10 to 2 vote.
You don’t need a unanimous jury vote for acquittal in any state. In some jurisdictions you can convict with less than a unanimous vote.
Seconded. It is very clearly a jab at how the poster expects the impeachment process to play out, using the language of a normal jury trial to highlight the “absurdity” (in the commentator’s eyes) of the impeachment process. Because that’s not how this works, that’s not show any of this works (in a normal civil or criminal trial, that is, with the possible exception of the majority vote for acquittal in some circumstances, and I say that only because I don’t want to expend too much effort validating or invalidating the details of what clearly is not meant to be represented as literal truth).
I didn’t word that right. Any non-unanimous verdict may result in a retrial, but not a conviction.
A hung jury case may be retried but that’s up to the DA. Not all are retried. In some cases the person will take a plea deal rather than go through another trial.
I’m confused by the question. If there is a jury is deciding the trial, the judge does not get to decide anything about guilt or innocence? So where does “overrule” come from? As for “admissible evidence” that’s the judge’s decision alone; and for admissibility hearings, as I understand, the jury is not in the room and does not hear about the admissibility arguments for and against - only hears the actual evidence and only if admitted to trial. (It’s a point of law, purview of the judge only) Of course, when a judge says about witness testimony “the jury will disregard those last statements” the jurors can’t really unhear what was said. Jury nullification is always an option, since juries don’t really have to explain themselves - just deliver a verdict.
And IANAL, but if the jury decides anything less than unanimous, in a criminal trial, isn’t that always a hung jury? I have heard of cases (I think?) where a juror or two were tossed and not replaced for un-jury-like conduct, and the case carries on with a reduced jury. And as mentioned, some civil trials work differently.
I would also think if a case ends with 7-5 in favour of “Not Guilty” then a prosecutor would probably have to take a serious look at whether it would be worth re-trying the case if you can’t even get a majority of 12 impartial jurors to agree the defendant is guilty - but a retrial is an option.
IANAL but my understanding is that a criminal trial judge has huge power … but the one thing he can NOT do (at least in most states) is to find defendant guilty if any juror disagrees. (What is he going to do? Fine the juror(s) for contempt?)
If you’re a juror and decide to “nullify” a law and enrage the judge, I advise acquitting defendant of ALL charges. If you “compromise” with a guilty verdict on some lesser included count, judge will inflict the maximum penalty, which may be significant even for a “minor” crime.
No you were right the first time. In Oregon it’s possible to convict with a 10-2 verdict, although not if the crime is murder. Used to be true in Louisiana as well, but that was recently changed.
Nitpick, “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Right. None of that happened in Ohio or anywhere else in the United States. It’s pure parody. The defendant is Trump, the judge is Roberts, and the jury is the United States Senate. The prosecution wants to call a witness (say Bolton) and the jury, the Senate, does not allow it. The jury (Senate) makes up the rules. 7 to 5 represents the slight majority that the Republicans have.
If none of that gives it away, you have the defense attorney, the defendant, and the jury foreman giggling and walking away arm in arm. That’s McConnell, Trump, and Giuliani.
If it’s a jury trial AFAIK, the judge has no say in the verdict. He just runs the trial, provides decisions on points of law, and pronounces the sentence in a guilty verdict. In some cases (capital murder?) the jury must also agree the sentence (i.e. death sentence) is warranted; in other situations, there are “mandatory minimums” because discretion leads to favoritism and of course nobody can find fault with zero tolerance.
It’s currently allowed in only two states – Oregon and Louisiana – and the Supreme Court is set to rule on its constitutionality this term. Court watchers expect it to be overturned.
The only thing a judge can do re: the verdict is overturn a guilty verdict or prevent a case even from going before a jury if the prosecution has failed to makes its case to the point that no reasonable jury could possibly return with a guilty verdict as a point of law.
A judge in a criminal trial CANNOT direct a guilty verdict in a jury trial. The nearest to that, which has received a great deal of scrutiny and may even have been ruled unconstitutional by now, is that a judge can disregard a Jury’s recommendation in the sentencing phase and impose a more severe penalty in some cases. This has specifically been an issue challenged in death penalty cases.
Not in Louisiana anymore. See post #10.
