After OJ and Casey Anthony, I must wonder if a jury is properly instructed how to deliberate? Do they really understand what “reasonable doubt” really means? Do they understand to take a holistic look at a case? I have to wonder if juries simply think they are there to decide if evidence is circumstantial or not. Unlike the hokie-pokie, that’s NOT what it’s all about!
When a jury considers each charge against the accused, like Case Anthony, are they thinking in a vacuum about each individual charge? Or, they considering the collective impact of all those charges? Because if they are parsing-up the charges, then they’re parsing up justice when the alleged deed occurs as the sum of those parts. Therefore, IMHO, the charges CANNOT be considered individually.
And most of all…do the jurors know they have the right to ask questions in the courtroom? Or, do the judges conveniently forget to mention this little fact? (I wonder how many SDopers knew this dirty little secret of the courts?)
OK, it’s early so maybe my reading comprehension hasn’t woken up yet, but I don’t really understand what your point is here.
What is a holistic look at a case? And when you talk about the charges you realize there are specific criteria for each charge, so the jury needs to check off the individual elements to determine if there is evidence of second- or third- or fourth- degree whatever?
And if you mean jurors can ask questions of witnesses, lawyers, etc. that is by no means a universal right.
Not that I know much about how US trials work, but this seems like a bad idea to me.
Do you mean that the jurors should in your opinion look at the charges one by one, find that, taken individually, none of them stands, but since there are so many of them, it’s enough evidence that the accused is guilty of something, which would result in them finding the accused guilty of one, several, or even all the charges, contrarily to their first opinion? :dubious:
Juries may or may not be adequately instructed as to “reasonable doubt”. Most judges tend to shy away from that from my understanding.
As to your second point, Juries have a responsibility to weight the evidence presented to them. The state must show demonstrable proof of guilt. The state can charge a person with whatever it wants if it thinks it can win. Considering a case in the manner you describe would be irresponsible. To use the Anthony case as an example since you brought it up, the jury had to decide:
Did the state prove she murdered the child? -No, they didn’t.
Did the state prove she had something else actively to do with the death itself? -No, they didn’t.
Did the state Prove she abused the child while still alive? -No, they didn’t.
Did the state Prove she lied multiple times to police? -Yes they did, fully and thoroughly.
It doesn’t matter how much you are charged with, all that matters is the proof. Which was lacking. The police could show up at my door right now and arrest me for whatever laundry list of charges they like. The could hold me a certain amount of time, and possibly get me held longer without bail. If they have no evidence though, they cannot further hold, nor convict me just because they run up a long list or make the court think I’m a scumbag.
Slightly incomplete, because in Florida (not sure about other states), charges include lesser included crimes:
One factor in the trial of Billy Bob Thorton’s daughter (found guilty of aggravated manslaughter after her best friend’s baby died in her care - trial held in the same courtroom as Casey Anthony) was that she waited more than 2 hours to call the police.
Casey Anthony waited 31 days before admitted (only under duress) that she ‘didn’t know where her baby was’, then made up a story of a kidnapping by a non-existent baby sitter and stuck to it for months.
The defense testimony in the Anthony case was that the child died from drowning while under her care. At the very least, the fact that no call was made for help would be evidence of a negligent act or omission that one would reasonably know would likely result in death or bodily harm (i.e., not calling paramedics ensures the baby would not live even if it was found in the pool).
I think it is pretty clear there is enough evidence to convict on grounds of aggravated manslaughter. The dim bulbs on the jury flat-out blew it, mainly because they spent less than an hour per 3 days of testimony actually going over stuff.
And I think you’ll find that most legal experts, and even possibly the jurors, would say that IF the prosecution had charged manslaughter AND (here’s the important part) actually MADE an argument and presented evidence similar to what you just did, it is very likely she could have been convicted of manslaughter.
Just today it was revealed that the jury was at 6-for and 6-against manslaughter 6 hours into the deliberations. But the prosecution didn’t provide them with what they needed to arrive at that conclusion.
The responsibility for the results of this case lay squarely on the police and the prosecution, not the jury.
Most judges and lawyers don’t understand what “reasonable doubt” really means, or at least couldn’t explain it in less than one paragraph. It’s just not a concept that jury instructions can adequately convey, so courts basically leave it up to jurors to decide for themselves. Defense attorneys spend lots of time explaining it during their closes, anyway.
In my opinion, the Casey trial is proof that juries do understand what reasonable doubt means. There’s no doubt in my mind that Casey would have been convicted of manslaughter or second degree murder under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
They don’t have the right, except in Arizona, Colorado and Indiana. A few judges outside those states allow jurors to ask questions during argument by local rule, but they would be the exception, not the rule.
Jurors can ask the judge questions during deliberation, of course, but that’s not “in the courtroom”.
No legal expert would say that, because the prosecution did charge manslaughter. Lower degrees are automatically charged as “lesser included offenses” in Florida.
Now, it’s certainly true that the prosecution presented an all-or-nothing case, meaning that when they failed to convince the jury on murder one there was nothing for the jury to deliberate about on manslaughter… but that has nothing to do with how they charged.
Jury instructions are standard, meaning, they come from model instructions. If you would like, I can post the model jury instructions from Virginia re: reasonable doubt. The reality is, however, reasonable doubt is a difficult concept for a lot of people to wrap their heads around.
The jury must think about each charge individually. And not only that, but each element of each charge individually. The same evidence may be used to prove multiple elements of a charge, or of multiple charges. But each charge MUST be looked at individually.
For example: Let’s say you are charged with Burglary and Grand Larceny. The jury instructions will read…
Count I, if you the jury, after hearing the evidence in this case, believe the Commonwealth* proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Jinx did, on the night in questions; a) break, b) and enter, c) in the night time, d) the dwelling house, e) of another, f) with the intent to commit larceny therein, then you will return a verdict of guilty to the charge of burlary. If however, the Commonwealth did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements a) thru f), then you will return a verdict of not guilty.
Count II, if you the jury, after hearing the evidence in this case, believe the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that **Jinx **did, on the night in question; a) take, b) property, c) belonging to another, d) with the intent to permanently deprive the owner, e) valued at more than $200, then you will return a verdict of guilty to the charge of grand larceny. If however, the Commonwealth did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements a) thru e), then you will return a verdict of not guilty.
Looking at those two charges, plenty of the same evidence would be used to demonstrate proof of multiple elements. And the larceny itself would be used to prove the intent to commit larceny element of the burlary charge. So obviously there is carry over. But each charge, and each element of each charge, must be looked at individually and in a vacuum. Because if the prosecutor fails to prove one element, they fail to prove the charge.
*prosecutors in Virginia are called Commonwealth’s Attorneys.
Jurors are absolutely allowed to ask questions, in my jurisdiction, but not mid-trial. In fact, the jury has asked a question in every one of my jury trials to date. Some questions can be answered, and some cannot.
My boss had a jury come back with the following question, “what is longer, life, or 365 years?” Needless to say, it was not a good day for her client. :eek:
I believe the biggest problem with the case was that it was too complicated. The prosecution should have kept it simple, instead they made it too complex and in complex cases, juries heads will explode and they will aquit. This is not the juries fault–they are simple humans like you and me. The fault lies in the prosecution for making too complex and not giving the jury an easy route to guilty.
Look at the Bloggo case–waaay too complicated the first time around and they aquitted. The second time around they made it simple, put it all into a little bundle and gave it to the jury to open and viola–guilty.
There used to be a definition for “beyond a reasonable doubt” that was used in jury instructions in Texas trials. As it turns out, the definition confused jurors more than giving them no definition at all. You can’t define “beyond a reasonable doubt” for jurors anymore.
I’m certainly aware that manslaughter was a lesser included offense that was automatically charged. My point (maybe poorly worded) was that it wasn’t THE primary charge, and as a result it wasn’t argued, nor was evidence for it presented.
Why? Because, IMO, the prosecution got swept up somewhat in the furor and charged based on what they and everybody else “just knew” in their gut instead of what they could prove. Once they decided to shoot for FDM, presenting evidence for manslaughter would have detracted from that. For one small (incomplete) example, if they had brought on a medical expert to testify about the likelihood of resuscitation of a drowned child if only the paramedics were called, they would have greatly improved their chances of getting a conviction for manslaughter. But by doing that, and acknowledging any possibility that the defense’s assertion of a drowning was true, they would have greatly weakened their charge of FDM.
They overshot - pure and simple - and that’s a direct result of how they decided to charge. Blaming the jury for not convicting on manslaughter is disingenuous. (I know we agree on that part.)
Suppose a jury determines that there are only two possible events that could have happened. Either the accused committed Crime A, or the accused committed Crime B. But they can’t determine which one it was (at last beyond reasonable doubt).
Can they convict on the lesser of the two charges?