Juries must convict on proper evidence. Had our justice system been working properly, many a black defendant back in the day would also have had their convictions overturned.
And the defense had a chance to remind the jurors of this, correct?
So why was the juries’ time wasted? They heard the evidence and came to a decision. If their decision wasn’t going to be allowed to stand, seems like it was a waste of their precious time.
I do.
Because the role of the jury is part of the process.
I can’t speak with great authority about Australian law, but in the United States, the jury’s determinations are of great value. But they’re not absolute. A jury’s verdict may be set aside if, as a matter of law, no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict they did.
This isn’t the same as the idea that the jury’s verdict is valueless. Imagine a scale, with one end at literally zero evidence and the other end at evidence that can be comfortably described as nearly complete certainty.
At zero evidence, no reasonable jury could convict. We assume that a trial court would not even permit a jury to consider the case. But if the judge did, and the jury convicted, the appellate court would discard their conviction.
Now we begin to add evidence. At some point, we reach the marker on the scale at which a reasonable jury could believe enough facts to find guilt as to each and every element of the crime alleged. This marker can occur even if the evidence is thin – as long as it’s reasonable.
At this point, an appellate court can’t disturb the jury’s findings of fact. They must accept the jury’s determination of facts, even if they weigh the evidence differently and would reach a different conclusion.
So it’s that area between “literally zero evidence,” and “the barest quanta of evidence necessary to create a legally sufficient record for guilt,” that would allow a jury’s verdict to be reversed.
Does that help?
In theory, yes, I understand. But why was the jury even allowed to deliberate if it turns out only a moron would have voted to convict?
If I were a juror on that jury I’d be livid.
ETA: nice hearing from you, Bricker. Stay safe.
Let’s imagine the case of Albert, accused of robbing a guy in an alleyway. The prosecution must prove that (1) Albert (2) took the property of the victim (3) from his person (4) by violence, intimidation or threat (5) with the intent to deprive him of it permanently.
The prosecution presents the testimony of the victim, who testifies that he was approached by a man wearing a mask. The masked man threatened to stab him if he didn’t hand over his wallet. The masked man was wearing a Yankees baseball hat. The victim handed the masked man the wallet. The man fled. The victim does not remember any other clothes the man was wearing.
The prosecution presents the testimony of the police officer, who testifies that he arrested Albert three bocks away. A Yankees baseball cap was found halfway between the scene of the crime and the scene of Albert’s arrest. Albert has previous convictions for shoplifting, heroin use, and, says the police officer unprompted, Albert never denied that he was the robber.
The jury finds Albert guilty.
Should their verdict stand, because otherwise their time was wasted?
Until the conviction is no longer able to be set aside in the ordinary course of direct Appellate review proceedings.
Sure, understandable.
This happens for a number of reasons.
Sometimes, it happens because the jury is asked to disregard something and they don’t. Sometimes, it happens because the trial judge wants to get a jury verdict as opposed to taking the matter on to his own shoulders – that is, a judge may dislike making an unpopular decision even if it’s legally mandated, and is hoping the jury will take the weight.
Most often, though, I’d say it’s because the trial judge believes there is an issue of triable fact, but the record ends up not supporting it. It’s not unheard, for example, for the trial judge to set aside a jury verdict: to order an acquittal as a matter of law, even after the jury returned a guilty verdict.
If that happens, interestingly enough, the prosecution can appeal and if successful, the guilty verdict is re-instated.
I’d go back a step. Should Albert have been charged, knowing that a jury would never convict, and even if it did, its decision would be reversed. Prosecutorial (is that a word?) fuck up, which was responsible for the error.
Are you saying that Cardinal Pell = Albert in this scenario, that things were that cut and dried?
No, no – I’m just trying to illustrate the concept. But might not a prosecutor say to himself, “I am personally convinced that Albert is guilty. Sure, he may end up going free, but at least he’ll be punished with a trial and jail before the trial, no matter what?”
But to answer your question: Pell’s case is not that cut and dried. In my example, there was so little evidence tying Albert to the crime that no reasonable jury could convict him. If they did, it was likely because they heard the officer comment on Albert’s failure to deny the crime – but of course that’s not a proper basis for the jury to decide guilt, and that’s why we say, “No reasonable jury would convict.”
In Pell’s case, the victim testified that Pell abused him in the priests’ sacristy following Mass. There were 23 separate witnesses who testified to various problems with the account given by the victim, including whether the whether the vestments worn could be moved to the side or parted so as to allow exposure of his genitals as the victim testified, how the practice of greeting people on the front steps following Mass made the timeline unworkable, and most fatally, the idea that with so many people around:
This was, by the way, a unanimous decision of the Australian High Court.
If I could offer an opinion, I think the jury wanted to punish Pell for the things he did – shielding priests from prosecution – that were not illegal. So they convicted Pell for being a scumbag. Being a scumbag is not illegal.
Because the US’s number one manufactured product is lawyers, and they generally don’t pay themselves.
OK, thank you for responding. I’ll admit to having the scumbag situation affect my view of what has transpired.
No worries!
Your entire belief system has proven to be a fraud and you’re smart enough to realize it, but not adult enough to admit it here. So you run away, but come back to make this one petty point while thousands die from Republican incompetence and the callousness of conservatism. Before you scurry away again.
Pathetic.
I’ve made a practice of returning for threads in which I made predictions that have now been resolved, in either direction – that is, “I was right,” and “I was wrong.”
I’m not sure how “Republican incompetence,” relates to Cardinal Pell’s acquittal.
When I heard the bad news, I thought to myself, ya know I bet Bricker is going to break his self imposed exile to come and gloat. So I guess in our own way we were both right. Congratulations Bricker the heads of your religion can go carry on preying on children and destroying lives with impunity. Enjoy you moment of smug satisfaction, it came at a high price.
I worked with prisoners awhile and was given the distinct impression that no matter how long or short the sentence there is no night longer than your first in prison. He didn’t have the usual prisoner experience but he still had that first night. There have been further allegations https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-02/george-pell-ballarat-allegations-revelation/12109952
I haven’t read the whole thread and I am not a supporter of Catholicism or Republicanism (far from it, in fact) but I feel the recent criticism of Bricker here is unfair, at least in relation to the way he has conducted himself on his return. I hope he sticks around - we could all use a bit of perspective from the other side of the debate at times, and although I appreciate Bricker’s debating style and personal preferences can rub people up the wrong way, he does seem to me to stick to facts and admit when he’s wrong, which are rather rare commodities on this board.
Perhaps you SHOULD read the whole thread, then come back and comment.
Since you asked so nicely, and against my better judgement (not because I don’t think it was a good idea; rather, I’m supposed to be working), I did, albeit I did skim some parts. It hasn’t significantly changed my position.
I think the key takeaways can be encapsulated in these few quotes:
My view is that Princhester (and Bricker) were restricting their arguments in this thread to points of fact/law.
This from Bricker hardly suggests he is defending or endorsing Pell’s actions:
However, I will say that I think this is not a good analogy:
Ford Motors in that scenario is not liable as they could not reasonably have been expected to know what was going on. I don’t believe this is the case in terms of the RCC and pedophilia of some of its priests.
Or, basically, this:
Nonetheless, I don’t believe Bricker is a defender of pedophilia or child abuse and I would rather have him around to debate things with even if many of us don’t agree with his politics, religion, or posting style.