Even if he knew about a dissenter? That’s surprising to me. It would seem that unanimity would be required, even if it meant an alternate stepping in when someone becomes incapacitated.
The jury decides the facts, not the law. The judge and the opposing attorneys work out the jury form based on how the law should be applied to the case, and the jury is resposible for determining what happened on each of those points of law.
What you are suggesting is “jury nullification”, which raises all sorts of problems. Most especially one that, if the general population thinks a law should be changed, they have a mechanism for that: the legislature.
Jury nullifcation has been a very popular topic in Great Debates over the years.
Unanimity is required in some jurisdictions and not in others, and even in those that don’t always require it, they sometimes require it. Some juries are 12 people, some 8, some 6. It all depends. Where I am, state civil juries are generally 12, and they don’t have to be unanimous – a majority wins.
If a juror becomes incapacitated, the juror ought to be replaced, whether or not there is a unanimity requirement. That juror is part of the jury as a whole, and if I get a jury of 12, I should get a jury of 12, not a jury of 11 plus one loopy guy.
Different states do it different ways, but many states have “model jury instructions.” (Google your state and model jury instructions, and you’ll likely turn them up.) Those model jury instructions are generally what the parties negotiate over; each side draws up their “ideal” jury instructions, then the two sides compare. The judge breaks ties, and at the end, there’s one set of jury instructions that are read to the jury.
In addition to agreeing on the jury instructions, the parties can draw up a jury verdict form. It’s the same as the jury instructions – the parties try to agree, and the judge determines the final form. In the cases BobT worked on, it sounds like the issues were relatively straightforward so there may not have been a jury verdict form. But in more complicated cases, there can be one.
Here is an example of a jury verdict form. (Warning: it’s a PDF.) You’ll see that there are a series of questions the jury has to answer. The numbers in the margin indicate (apparently) how many jurors voted which way (some are 11-1, some 12-0).
Can a jury do anything it wants, regardless of the law and jury verdict form? Sure. Is that legal? In my opinion, no. Jury nullification is another issue, though.
Sometimes the jury purely doesn’t understand the jury verdict form. Some of the forms are quite confusing (the Martha Stewart one that’s posted on The Smoking Gun, for example, is confusing to me). If the jury doesn’t understand the verdict form, that’s the fault of the lawyers and the judge, not the law.
If the jury understands the verdict form, disagrees with it or disagrees with the law they are being asked to apply, and deliberately fills the jury verdict form out wrong, that seems to me to be a form of jury nullification which, as I said, is a whole other can of worms.
On preview, what paperbackwriter said. I hope this helps, rather than increasing confusion.
Jurors are not lawyers. They should deal with right and wrong, not legality or illegality. I see absolutely no conflict with coming to the conclusion that a law was broken but no wrong-doing occurred and no punishment is warranted. The law should be fix, yes, but good people don’t need to suffer because the judicial system moves faster than the legislature.
That’s why the jurors decide the facts (what happened), not what the law is. They are told what the law is and then must apply the facts to the law.
The jury may be able to conclude that. For example, they could conclude that the defendant breached the contract, but that the plaintiff was not harmed by the breach, so no damages are awarded. In the criminal context, I disagree with you. If a law was broken, by necessity wrong-doing occurred. Arguing that there should be no punishment is essentially a jury nullification argument.
Then amend the Constitution. Because our only other option is unpalatable.
That’s precisely why the lawyers who are involved instruct the non-lawyers on what the law is.
Which right or wrong? Right and wrong are subjective moral standards not applicable to a court. A court must by necessity deal in objective legality. The standards are written out, and can be examined and agreed to. There will, of course, be differing opinions on interpretation, but at least the text is fixed.
Judgements on right and wrong are made on the basis of unwritten rules that we carry around in our heads, often unexamined, and are peculiar to each individual. Name any standard you think is universal, and I guarantee there are those who disagree. To do what you suggest opens the legal system to the capriciousness of despotic systems.
Again, a jury nullification argument, which is properly a GD thread. In fact, here are some prior ones you may be interested in reading:
Also, the court personnel aren’t nearly as infallible as they appear on TV. When I served on a jury, the form was just flat-out typed up wrong. After puzzling over the confusing language for about 20 minutes, we had to send the form back to the judge because the “if x then go to y” logic of it was incorrect. They had referred to the wrong question number at one point.
Our jury was polled, and even the polling was done poorly. I forget exactly how the judge did it, but he worded the question as a double-negative, leaving confusion as to whether “yes” meant we agreed or disagreed with the written verdict. The whole process definitely is not as cut-and-dried as it appears on television.
Fellas, you want to take the nullification debate to GD? Hell, there’s probably one going on there now anyway; there often is.
1010, there’s no “legal code” in jury verdict forms usually, but rather things like “Did Mr. David break Mr. Peterson’s window? If so, what is the amount of compensaion Mr. Peterson should receive, if any?” If the jury answers question 1, “No” but still awards an amount, either they did not understand the form or they are improperly trying to award damages to someone who was never harmed.
–Cliffy
There are two types of clerks. A court clerk is primarily a clerical position, although because the clerk deals with filings from various parties and subpoenas and defaults and stuff, they ultimately have to have an understanding of the legal requirements involved. A judicial clerk is someone, usually a person just out of law school or maybe one or two years out, who assists the judge by doing research, reviewing the pleadings, and drafting the opinions that the judge will eventually issue.
–Cllify
I was thinking of the court clerks. Not the people who write Supreme Court opinions. 
Would someone who is the clerk to a regular county judge have more legal training than a paralegal?
[aside]Really? I didn’t know this? You are referring to the person you see sitting to the side of the judge, who handles the dockets and so on? Is this the same as a judicial clerkship filled by a newly-minted JD?
[/aside]
In this instance, we were talking about the English court system, where it’s usual in most trials for the judge to start by requiring that the jury reach a unanimous verdict then, if no decision is being reached, allow that either a 11-1 or 10-2 majority will be acceptable - as explained on the CJS website. In the case involved, which had involved a day or so of testimony, we were expecting that the judge was unlikely to want the case to drag on too far and that a ruling that he’s accept a majority verdict was likely to happen within several hours.
I’m fairly sure that we had no alternates, so in the event of discovering the problem with the unstable juror I presume that the judge would have either had to call for a retrial or discharge the juror and send us back in with whatever instructions he saw fit. (As that CJS page indicates, juries can be reduced.) However, it happens that my comment was more about the point that the eleven of us could still feel comfortable about the outcome; had our deliberations continued for slightly longer, the agreement between the rest of us would have sufficed anyway.