# Is there a point where extended jury debate infringes on a defendant's right to a fair trial? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 17, 2017, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-point-where-extended-jury-debate-infringes-on-a-defendants-right-to-a-fair-trial/789171 "2017-06-17T06:19:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-point-where-extended-jury-debate-infringes-on-a-defendants-right-to-a-fair-trial/789171/21 "2017-06-18T02:06:14Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Letting the guilty go free is ALWAYS an injustice. It can’t be anything else. Someone committed a crime without consequence. Victims were hurt, and they cannot get restitution. The person who committed the crime is not discouraged from committing it again, and someone who commits rape now knows the likelihood of getting in trouble is lower than before. Society is inherently worse off, and less just. > > Furthermore, you can’t cite rule of law when you admit that, under rule of law, they did not grant immunity. If they didn’t use the proper legal mechanism, then, under the law, they are not restricted. > > You can’t have it both ways. If you follow the law, you follow the whole of the law. If you, on the other hand, use the law as a tool to stop injustice, then you can’t let a guilty man go free as long as it is in within your power to stop him. I agree with this…to a certain extent. Letting the guilty off because of a technicality is like sports refs who acknowledge that they made a mistake, but refuse to correct it “because the rules don’t allow challenges within the last 2 minutes,” - but, of course, with consequences far more dire for the people involved in court. But at the same time, bending rules at will or making exceptions here and there, is a recipe for abuse of power later on. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-point-where-extended-jury-debate-infringes-on-a-defendants-right-to-a-fair-trial/789171/22 "2017-06-18T14:56:13Z")
A proper juror can only decide guilty/not guilt on the basis of the specific case presented for the specific crime charged. Period. Anything else is simply a lynch mob with the government standing by to perform whatever sentence the mob chooses for whatever reason the mob chooses. All of **BigT** ’s argument amounts to this: “I know he was guilty of something before the trial even started. Now that I as a juror have the opportunity to punish him, I must take it.” That is the darkest perversion of Justice I’ve heard in a very long time. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-point-where-extended-jury-debate-infringes-on-a-defendants-right-to-a-fair-trial/789171/23 "2017-06-18T17:53:34Z")
I don’t think that the case should ever have gone to trial in the first place. We have no physical evidence whatsoever in the case with one witness with contradictory testimony. Yet they deliberated longer than the actual trial lasted. It was he said, she said and in such situations tie should really go to the accused. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-point-where-extended-jury-debate-infringes-on-a-defendants-right-to-a-fair-trial/789171/24 "2017-06-19T11:54:04Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Letting the guilty go free is ALWAYS an injustice. It can’t be anything else. Someone is only guilty when found so by a court, and even then it’s subject to appeal. If someone hasn’t been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, they are found not guilty, and that is binding and irrevocable. Acting as though someone is guilty who hasn’t been found that way by a court is ALWAYS an injustice. It can’t be anything else. As for the general idea of a mistrial, it’s also unjust. If there’s a juror who’s not convinced of guilt, that by definition means there’s reasonable doubt - someone has seen the full facts of the case and finds reason to doubt guilt. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-point-where-extended-jury-debate-infringes-on-a-defendants-right-to-a-fair-trial/789171/25 "2017-06-19T12:43:32Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Someone is only guilty when found so by a court, and even then it’s subject to appeal. If someone hasn’t been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, they are found not guilty, and that is binding and irrevocable. > > Acting as though someone is guilty who hasn’t been found that way by a court is ALWAYS an injustice. It can’t be anything else. > > As for the general idea of a mistrial, it’s also unjust. If there’s a juror who’s not convinced of guilt, that by definition means there’s reasonable doubt - someone has seen the full facts of the case and finds reason to doubt guilt. I dislike a mistrial because the prosecutor has seemingly unlimited resources to continue trying the case until the end of time whereas attorneys can drain the resources of even the richest people rather quickly. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-point-where-extended-jury-debate-infringes-on-a-defendants-right-to-a-fair-trial/789171/26 "2017-06-19T17:40:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Furthermore, you can’t cite rule of law when you admit that, under rule of law, they did not grant immunity. If they didn’t use the proper legal mechanism, then, under the law, they are not restricted. Disagree. I don’t know the specifics of this case, and I could imagine a case where I’d agree with this, but in general, if the prosecutor and the accused both reasonably believed there was an immunity deal, then the deal should be honored. Mistakes in process should _never_ benefit the state, because the state is the most powerful party that controls the process, and we _really_ don’t want the state to have an interest in fucking things up. Fruit of the poisoned tree and all that. > [@](#): > > You can’t have it both ways. If you follow the law, you follow the whole of the law. If you, on the other hand, use the law as a tool to stop injustice, then you can’t let a guilty man go free as long as it is in within your power to stop him. Disagree as well. Better a hundred guilty men go free, etc. And also, because guilty and not-guilty votes are not symmetrical. They are not one’s best estimate of whether the accused committed a crime; they are about whether the prosecution proved that. The null hypothesis is not guilty. If I’m the lone holdout not willing to vote guilty (and I am legitimately considering the evidence), then the prosecution did not prove its case. Doesn’t matter what the other 11 people think. If they can’t convince me, then guilt is not proved. I’m not budging. If I’m the lone holdout not willing to vote not-guilty (and I believe at least one of the other jurors is legitimately considering the evidence), then the prosecution did not prove its case. If I can convince them otherwise, great. Otherwise, guilt is not proved. I’ll try for a while, then give up and vote not-guilty. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-point-where-extended-jury-debate-infringes-on-a-defendants-right-to-a-fair-trial/789171/27 "2017-06-20T02:55:31Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > If you genuinely think he is guilty, then you are committing an injustice in letting him go free. You are denying a punishment for rape, and thus encouraging rape. I can’t even see any moral difference from doing that and my buddy confessing to me and me trying to help him get away with it. > > Things are bad enough as it is, with people disbelieving rape victims all the time, and there often not being enough evidence for people to know the truth. We shouldn’t make things worse. > > If you know he did it, vote guilty. Use the power the law has given you to make the world a better place. I have multiple problems with this post, I will focus on two. Your job as a juror is not to “know he did it”, whatever it is and whoever he is, your job as a juror is to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution proved the case against the defendant. Even if you are convinced that he is guilty, say because of some outside information/belief/value you have, unless the prosecution demonstrated in this trial beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the specific charge against him, you need to vote not guilty. People don’t like this, look up jury nullification sometime, but that is what you are sworn to do. ALL the evidence necessary to convince you, the juror, beyond a reasonable doubt, MUST have been presented in the trial. Outside information, no matter how solid or pertinent, is not to be considered. That is the way the law works. That is what the law is asking the jury to do. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-point-where-extended-jury-debate-infringes-on-a-defendants-right-to-a-fair-trial/789171/28 "2017-06-20T03:02:59Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > \ > Furthermore, you can’t cite rule of law when you admit that, under rule of law, they did not grant immunity. If they didn’t use the proper legal mechanism, then, under the law, they are not restricted. \ And that is important-because Mr. Cosby is not a lawyer. Under the law as I understand it, Mr. Cosby should have been protected because he was advised by his lawyer, and in fact by the prosecutor, that the offer was in fact legal. As it turns out, those legal professionals were wrong-they should be appropriately punished, but Mr. Cosby did nothing wrong in accepting the deal and he should not be punished for following the practice of law. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-point-where-extended-jury-debate-infringes-on-a-defendants-right-to-a-fair-trial/789171/29 "2017-06-20T12:48:48Z")
> [@rbroome](#): > > And that is important-because Mr. Cosby is not a lawyer. Under the law as I understand it, Mr. Cosby should have been protected because he was advised by his lawyer, and in fact by the prosecutor, that the offer was in fact legal. As it turns out, those legal professionals were wrong-they should be appropriately punished, but Mr. Cosby did nothing wrong in accepting the deal and he should not be punished for following the practice of law. Agree. As said so well here: > [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > … > but in general, if the prosecutor and the accused both reasonably believed there was an immunity deal, then the deal should be honored. Mistakes in process should _never_ benefit the state, because the state is the most powerful party that controls the process, and we _really_ don’t want the state to have an interest in fucking things up. Fruit of the poisoned tree and all that. > … This is really key. If the government is permitted to profit from it’s mistakes, soon enough all trials will contain “mistakes”. Our whole constitution is designed around protecting the citizenry from the natural tendency of all governments to overstep their bounds. We need to keep the camel’s nose out of the tent everywhere all the time. . ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-point-where-extended-jury-debate-infringes-on-a-defendants-right-to-a-fair-trial/789171/30 "2017-06-20T17:42:29Z")
The old saying is “a bad man might have a good case”. What \*\*BigT [/B]is saying that essentially we should concentrate on the “bad man” bit and ignore everything else. That is…horrifying. Justice is reduced to whether or not a person is sympathetic. What about cases where the victim is a bastard? Would **BigT** oppose punishment for them because they clearly had it coming? ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-point-where-extended-jury-debate-infringes-on-a-defendants-right-to-a-fair-trial/789171/31 "2017-06-20T17:48:27Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Like I said above, **I know he’s probably a serial rapist who roofies women**. But, if the state prosecutors can’t be forced to honor a deal that they made, we don’t really have rule of law. Rule of law means, among other things, you sometimes have to let people you know are guilty go free because to do otherwise would be an injustice. There is surprisingly little direct evidence of that. There is a lot of evidence that he liked to give women drugs and like to have sex with them. That does not necessarily mean its rape. There is a lot of evidence of bad behavior and a general scummy character. Quite a lot less for actual verifiable rapes. Even his much-purported “confession”\* does not equal confession of _rape_ and in fact is pretty exculpatory if read in depth. He says again in essence that he shared 'ludes with certain women and they took it. He says he never hid what they were. That they later had sex and that at no point did the women say no. None of that is in anyway confessing to rape. In that all the elements of rape have been admitted, i.e lack of consent and knowing/should have known of said absence. \*It **is** a confession to various drug offenses though. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-point-where-extended-jury-debate-infringes-on-a-defendants-right-to-a-fair-trial/789171/32 "2017-06-20T17:59:05Z")
Back to the OP’s question. > [@aceplace57](#): > > I understand it’s worth sending the jury back one time to continue the debate. > > Isn’t there a point where the defendant’s right to a fair trial may be at risk? Can a jury decision be appealed because it was deadlocked for days? This question has been considered for years, and yes, there is such a point. I won’t quote this entire case, but it includes a nice summary of how courts have handled the competing interests when a jury is deadlocked. > [@](#): > > Members of the American Bar Association Task Force on Criminal Justice shared this concern that Allen instructions could coerce minority jurors into abandoning their honestly held convictions and voting with the majority. In 1968 the Task Force proposed a carefully worded instruction to be given to assist a jury in reaching a verdict. Standard 5.4 provides as follows: > > (a) Before the jury retires for deliberation, the court may give an instruction which informs the jury: > > (i) that in order to return a verdict, each juror must agree thereto; > (ii) that jurors have a duty to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement, if it can be done without violence to individual judgment; > (iii) that each juror must decide the case for himself, but only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with his fellow jurors; > (iv) that in the course of deliberations, a juror should not hesitate to reexamine his own views and change his opinion if convinced it is erroneous; and > (v) that no juror should surrender his honest conviction as to the weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinion of his fellow jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. > > (b) If it appears to the court that the jury has been unable to agree, the court may require the jury to continue their deliberations and may give or repeat an instruction as provided in subsection (a). The court shall not require or threaten to require the jury to deliberate for an unreasonable length of time or for unreasonable intervals. > > (c) The jury may be discharged without having agreed upon a verdict if it appears that there is no reasonable probability of agreement. > ABA Standards Relating to the Administration of Criminal Justice, Std. 5.4 at 332 (Comp.1974). > > This proposal was widely adopted by both federal and state courts. In this state, concern for preventing coercion of a deadlocked jury led to the adoption in 1973 of CrR 6.15(f)(2). This rule prohibits the giving of certain instructions to a deadlocked jury. After jury deliberations have begun, the court shall not instruct the jury in such a way as to suggest the need for agreement, the consequences of no agreement, or the length of time a jury will be required to deliberate.The task force recommending this rule intended by it to “eliminate the possibility of prejudice attendant upon the giving of an ‘Allen’ instruction.” _State v. Boogaard_, 90 Wash.2d 733, 737 n. 1, 585 P.2d 789 (1978).2 The Washington Pattern Jury Instructions suggest that this rule prohibits any instruction being given to a deadlocked jury. See WPIC 4.81 and Comment thereto. We do not interpret the rule this broadly. The clear language of CrR 6.15(f)(2) prohibits instructions which suggest any of three specific things: the need for agreement, the consequences of no agreement, and the length of time the jury will be required to deliberate. It does not prohibit all instructions. > > _State v. Watkins,_ 99 Wn.2d 166, 174–75, 660 P.2d 1117, 1121–22 (1983) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-point-where-extended-jury-debate-infringes-on-a-defendants-right-to-a-fair-trial/789171.md?page=1)