# If you were on my jury... **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 11, 2009, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302 "2009-02-11T00:40:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/41 "2009-02-11T04:09:05Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Right now I’m assuming all the evidence in this case is presented here. The OP is a public defender, though, so I’m wondering if some of the contentions the prosecution would make have been left out. Bottom line is that if the jury believes the girl, they can convict. From my limited experience, juries are generally predisposed to convict. Despite all the instructions about presumptions of innocence and burdens of proof, and all the promises to consider only the evidence presented…jurors seem to feel the guy must have done something or he wouldn’t be on trial. Give them a witness they believe, and they will convict. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/42 "2009-02-11T04:16:50Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Bottom line is that if the jury believes the girl, they can convict. I’m not suggesting they can’t. “Reasonable doubt” is whatever you think it is. I think there are significant missing pieces here, though. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/43 "2009-02-11T04:21:49Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But if you’re in court and all of the evidence you hear is telling one consistent story **and that story contains enough evidence to support that the defendant committed the crime** , then you are supposed to convict. You’re not supposed to be making your decison based on “evidence” that didn’t exist - like what another witness might have said or what the results of a DNA test might have been. You’re supposed to decide based on the evidence that was presented in court. I’ve bolded the part that makes this version more correct than your first statement. Still not quite right, though. The evidence as a whole must convince the jury that the defendant committed the crime or crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has no obligation to prove anything…except in certain limited situations involving an affirmative defense. Reasonable doubt is a tricky thing to define. Proof that a defendant could have committed the crime, without more, is not enough to sustain a conviction. Proof that a defendant probably committed the crime is not enough (but would support a verdict for damages in some civil matters). Proof that defendant could have done it, probably did it, and no one else had the opportunity to do it is getting closer to beyond a reasonable doubt. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/44 "2009-02-11T04:24:29Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’ve heard it called the CSI effect. People watch these shows and think that every case should have all that scientific evidence like they saw on TV. The reality is that testing a single rape kit is costs between $445 and $1200 ([cite](http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:IngKzHAXe6YJ:www.osbm.state.nc.us/files/pdf_files/3-1-2006FinalDNAReport.pdf)) and testing the 400,000 kits used in the country would be hundreds of millions of dollars. And that’s just for the testing; if you enter the test as evidence you’re going to need an expert witness to explain it in court and their cost averages $2000 a day (plus expenses). A DA that has enough other evidence to convict is going to go with what he has and save his resources for other cases. So the justification for not testing the condom or the defendant is that it costs too much? That’s crap. The bolded bit from St Germain’s quote underneath is one reason that they might not have tested for DNA, but it should, obviously, be stated clearly in court that this physical evidence is not corroborated by DNA because they couldn’t test for it. It’s corroborated by her testimony, but not by DNA testing. Otherwise the physical evidence has too much weight. People are strongly persuaded by ‘facts and figures.’ If the DA has enough other evidence that they don’t need to do DNA testing, then they shouldn’t use evidence that might have worked against them had DNA testing been paid for. > [@StGermain](#): > > Marley - So eye-witness testimony is now worthless? They were caught together by the police, shortly after her sexual assault. Proximity alone would make him a likely suspect, and when the victim ID’d him and he didn’t refute it, what more should be needed? Extra evidence would be peachy, but **physical evidence is often washed away, or co-mingled with other samples.** So unless he says “I didn’t do it”, I’d consider it for the State. And if he did say “I didn’t do it”, then I’d test my evidence and strengthen my case. In this - hopefully hypothetical - case, we haven’t heard the defence’s case. We don’t know if he denied or admitted the charge, and we don’t know if they had any other suspects for the bite mark. If the defence is ‘yes, I had sex with her, but she wanted it,’ then he’s guilty of at the very least the second charge the OP mentions, and probably the third, quite possibly the first. But we don’t know what the defence said. We also don’t know exactly what the girl who was assaulted said, what the defendant said, or what anyone else around them said, or what time the mother called the police and what she said then, or who else was around that night, or a ton of other factors. Those details might lead us, the internet jury, to convict without physical evidence. But the OP asked us to make a theoretical call on an extremely limited amount of information, and I can’t think of any other reasonable internet verdict to give other than ‘abstain. We need more information.’ ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/45 "2009-02-11T12:45:28Z")
Can I play the Scotland card? Not Proven! More seriously, it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the charge. [This article](http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html) says that nearly half of all rape claims are false. The [Nordmark](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/23/national/main601627.shtml) case is also instructive. ---
**Author:** ![Hal\_Briston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9a28c/32.png) [@Hal\_Briston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hal_Briston)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/46 "2009-02-11T13:29:10Z")
> [@katie1341](#): > > The only evidence you’re going to have is what I’ve outlined. The state has the burden of proof, and if they haven’t met it, you have to find D not guilty. If that’s all we’re getting, then no, the state has failed. I realize the “_CSI_ Effect” has made things more difficult for prosecutors, as juries want to see DNA evidence for everything before they’ll even think of convicting. However, to have potential slam-dunk evidence sitting there untested makes me think either the prosecutors know it wouldn’t be a match, or they’re lazy and incompetent. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/47 "2009-02-11T13:45:15Z")
Q:Would you convict D? A: I would want to hear some testimony from the PW before I decided on any charges. If someone held a gun to my head and said “you have to decide now” I would at most convict of statutory rape. Q: Would it make a difference to you if you knew that D would get a mandatory 25 year, no parole sentence for rape? Q: Would it make a difference to you if you knew that D would have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life if he got convicted of anything he’s charged with? A: Are these last two some jury nullification kind of question? Is a juror allowed to decide “I’m reasonably sure this person is guilty of the crime as charged, but since our laws are too draconian, I am going to say that I don’t think he’s guilty?” ---
**Author:** ![atomicbadgerrace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@atomicbadgerrace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/atomicbadgerrace)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/48 "2009-02-11T13:53:54Z")
> [@katie1341](#): > > Would you convict D? No. I don’t believe the state has met the burden of proof in this case, given only the facts above. I’d have to say not guilty if this is all we have to go on. > [@](#): > > Would it make a difference to you if you knew that D would get a mandatory 25 year, no parole sentence for rape? > > Would it make a difference to you if you knew that D would have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life if he got convicted of anything he’s charged with? No. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/49 "2009-02-11T14:36:52Z")
Please please please don’t say that you are on the jury. If you are you should be thrown out on your ass for coming here and soliciting comments. None of these comments should be used in anyway since no one here saw the actual testimony, just your filtered version of events. Or will see if it hasn’t happened yet. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/50 "2009-02-11T14:48:15Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Please please please don’t say that you are on the jury. If you are you should be thrown out on your ass for coming here and soliciting comments. I don’t think that’s the case: in her profile, the OP identifies herself as a public defender. If she’s been using the board to get feedback on how to present her case, I have a major ethical problem with that, as a moderator and a poster. I don’t know how that is looked upon from a legal standpoint, but purely from a message board standpoint, we’d have to discuss handling it. If that’s NOT what is happening here, it should have been disclosed upfront, because hypothetical questions are fine, and talking about a past case is presumably no problem. ---
**Author:** ![atomicbadgerrace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@atomicbadgerrace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/atomicbadgerrace)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/51 "2009-02-11T14:51:34Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > If that’s NOT what is happening here, it should have been disclosed upfront, because hypothetical questions are fine, and talking about a past case is presumably no problem. From post 9: [QUOTE=katie1341] I’m asking as a hypothetical attorney, either prosecution or defense. [/QUOTE] If that’s true, then I don’t see any ethical problem here. And thus far, I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/52 "2009-02-11T15:01:23Z")
Well I don’t personally know any 18 year olds who have had sexual relations of any kind, consensual or not, with a 12 year old. So my inclination would be to take him out back of the courthouse and put him down. I can’t see that there is anything good coming for him or the women he meets. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/53 "2009-02-11T15:10:34Z")
> [@atomicbadgerrace](#): > > If that’s true, then I don’t see any ethical problem here. And thus far, I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that it’s not. If it’s a hypothetical, as I said, there’s no problem. And I’m not assuming otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/54 "2009-02-11T15:20:31Z")
It’s a wonder that anyone got convicted of a crime before DNA evidence. As far as the OP, it’s pretty clear where her sympathies lie. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/55 "2009-02-11T15:39:40Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > [This article](http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html) says that nearly half of all rape claims are false. I’ll give that .001% not random sample all the weight it deserves. > [@Quartz](#): > > The [Nordmark](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/23/national/main601627.shtml) case is also instructive. It might be instructive if anyone had thought that false claims of rape NEVER EVER happen. Good thing no one did. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/56 "2009-02-11T15:52:45Z")
No DNA evidence? Sorry, State of Bumfuck, you’re losers and you don’t deserve to win. Even if they went ahead and ran the tests, I’m not sure they could be trusted at this point. I vote not guilty just to send a message to the DA not to attempt to run through weak shit like that. ---
**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/57 "2009-02-11T16:44:40Z")
Guilty on the Statutory Rape, Not Guilty on everything else unless the PW was particularly compelling on the stand. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/58 "2009-02-11T17:05:44Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > If she’s been using the board to get feedback on how to present her case, I have a major ethical problem with that, as a moderator and a poster. There would also be few things stupider than using the self-selected responses of the SDMB community to gauge the reaction of a real jury. Unless the plan was assume the opposite reaction, or something. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/59 "2009-02-11T17:18:03Z")
> [@StGermain](#): > > **Snnipe 70E** - But the defendant hasn’t claimed that the PW was in error, lying, or anything else. All we have is her word, no rebuttal. > > StG Do you mean did he plead Not Guilty, or actually say, himself, that he didn’t do it? IF it’s the latter, he doesn’t have to-it’s called the Fifth Amendment-ever heard of it? :dubious: (Unless you’re outside the US, in which case, I appologize) **Little Nemo** : As far as “beyond a shadow of a doubt”, the girl’s story sounds fishy. MAYBE they had sex-but we don’t know if HE was the asailant, or even the lover, as the state hasn’t tested the DNA (and I don’t want to hear “it costs too much.”)-in a case like this, you’d damned well better test it. I would vote not guilty. Guilty of statutory rape, perhaps. But not enough evidence to convict for actual rape. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302/60 "2009-02-11T17:45:20Z")
IMO, the DNA issue is a red herring, in that having it or not having it neither proves nor disproves the story of the PW. What your outline of the facts does not tell us – cannot tell us – is whether the PW is credible. If I believe that she woke up with him on her in the act of having sex with her, then I convict for rape. Nothing you have listed is evidence to the contrary, and the evidence that she is not always truthful is not by itself enough to reject her testimony. So do I believe her, or not? If believe that sex took place betwen the two of them whether consensual or not, then I convict for statutory rape. Again, the only evidence establishing it is her testimony, and you have listed no evidence establishing that it did _not_ happen. So do I believe her, or not? And no, it would not make any difference to me the sentence he might face. If he raped a 12 year old, he needs to face the consequences of that. If he had consensual sex with a 12 year old, he needs to face the consequences of that as well. Plus I know that as a juror my job is to find guilt or innocence, not to decide on punishment, and a person doesn’t become more or less guilty (or innocent) based on the consequences they might face. And I think anytime you’ve got accusations of an adult (even a young adult) having sex with a 12 year old, you’ve got seriously long odds against acquittal. IAAL, IANYL, etc etc [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-were-on-my-jury/485302.md?page=4)