I had a trafficking in meth trial today. We picked the jury yesterday, and started the actual trial today. My client, who was present during the jury selection yesterday, decided for whatever reason not to freakin’ show up today. The judge swore the jury in yesterday, which allowed him to try my client in absentia today.
Without telling you what my defense was, or what the verdict was, if you were on my jury, and you had seen the defendant at the defense table yesterday, and there was neither hide nor hair of him today, and the state, defense, and judge didn't mention his absence, would you have let it affect your decision?
My quick answer is “yes”. I would be affected by a persons absence from his own trial unless told specifically the reason for it.
On the other hand if no mention or uproar was made over the absence I might think that there was some reason for them not to be present that I was unaware of.
Perhaps my best answer would be; I would be puzzled but not determined to condemn.
I don’t know, since it never would have occurred to me that we wouldn’t be told if the accused just blew the trial off. I would probably have assumed hospitalization or incarceration. If I found out the truth before deliberation, I would have a really hard time not being supremely pissed off and my judgement might be affected.
I have a horrible memory for faces, and might have quite possibly assumed that you were the defendant acting in your own defense, and that the person previously seen was immaterial.
I served on a jury last June, the trial lasted 9 days. The defendant was not present one day, we were told he had another obligation that day but the trial would continue. I found out a few weeks after the trial ended that the defendant was in a different court being sentenced from an unrelated trial in which he had been found guilty. The defendant was being held with a $1,000,000 bail at the jail next to the courthouse and had no real way of missing the trial.
It might affect my decision. My previous experiences serving on jurys lead me to believe that most defendants are idiots with rap sheets a mile long. So if the defendant wasn’t there, I might assume the worst.
On the other hand, I might not notice if no one commented on it.
And I’d like to believe that there the evidence presented in court would be sufficient to help me form an opinion without letting the absence of the defendant influence my judgement.
I’ve never served as a juror so I don’t know for sure but I don’t think it would effect my guilty/non-guilty opinion. If he’s a seedy-looking type it may have been the best thing for him; my F-I-L has served on several juries and takes the appearance of the defendant into consideration when forming his opinions, and says fellow jurors are the same. I guess the lesson is dress nice and look pleasant when you’re a defendant.
Off-topic question - where did you go to law school, Katie?
I’ve never served as a juror, but in Spain (jury criminal trials are just starting and the jury’s veredict is non-binding) the judge informs the room why the accused is absent, whether he’s excused (most likely for being sick), expelled (for things like informing the world of His Lordship’s mother’s sexual proclivities or not shutting up when His Lordship says to) or being tried in absentia (he didn’t come in, the cops went to his house, not there).
To me it would be a mark against the accused. I realize it may be that he’s not-guilty but terrified but damnit, that’s what you get a lawyer for, to help you. You’re not “going against the system alone.”
Like Campion, I would be curious, and would be disgusted with him if I later found out that he just blew it off (after all, if I have to be there, he damn well should be). I wouldn’t take it into consideration in my decision, however. It doesn’t seem relevant to the facts of the case.
I suppose that if the judge decided it was somehow relevant and instructed the jury to consider it, it would be a different matter.
Georgia State in Atlanta- graduated in 1987 (holy shit- I just realized I’ve been out of law school for 20 years!).
The jury did convict my client. It was a hand-to-hand sale of 112 grams of meth to an undercover officer, captured on tape. In Georgia, there is a mandatory minimum 10-yr prison sentence, max of 30, for sale or possession of 28-200 grams. This guy was an undocumented from Mexico (the judge is probably kicking himself for giving him a bond).
I consider it to be a TKO that the jury deliberated for a half-hour before returning a verdict, given that the sale was on tape.
The jury sent out one wwritten question during their deliberations- “Where is the Defendant? Should we take his absence into consideration?” The judge told them that they could only consider the evidence presented in the trial.
Because no one said anything, like many of the other posters, I would assume that the Defendant’s absence was a non-issue, so I wouldn’t *initially *consider it important. However, it’s very likely that someone else on the jury would know better and mention it during deliberations, at which point there would be a little nagging, “hey, now that you mention it…where IS the Defendant?” in my head. At which point, I’d send out (or ask to send out), that note to the judge that you mention. Getting that answer back, I’d shrug and go on with my day.
I think having the illegal action caught on videotape would be a far greater mark in the ledger of my mind.
It’s possible my answer would be different if the evidence was more ambiguous. Much as we’re told to consider only the evidence, arguments and law, there is the human drive to puzzle things out, and that’s when a jury starts playing armchair psychologist.
Unless I was told something specific, I would immediately think, “uh-oh…he skipped” but then I would make a conscious effort to NOT MAKE AN ASSUMPTION until the court or his attorney gave me more concrete information. I take the whole jury thing very seriously and would make every effort to base my opinion on true evidence instead of surface appearances. I would hope a jury would give me the same respect if the tables were turned.
That certainly describes my jury experience. I think one jury I was on spent more time trying to puzzle out the swear words that the defendant wouldn’t use in front of the judge and the jury than we did deciding that the defendant was guilty as charged.