Imagine you’re a juror in a case and it’s plain as a pikestaff that the prosecution are being deliberately incompetent and trying to throw the case. What do you do? Complain to the judge? And what if the judge seems to be in on it?
IANAL, but my understanding is that if the prosecution is being so brazenly incompetent that it’s obvious to a juror, then it would also be obvious to the judge, who would hopefully declare a mistrial. As a juror, I suppose you could intentionally refuse to reach a consensus with the other jurors – forcing a hung jury – which would also cause a mistrial.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a better way for a juror to speak up about the misconduct, instead of also engaging in misconduct. If the judge is in on it, the only routes I can think of are causing a hung jury or engaging in jury nullification, but those are probably frowned upon. Hopefully one of our resident lawyers will be along shortly to provide more information.
IIRC the jury is allowed to directly ask questions, the court generally discourages and prefers that the jury does not know that this ability exists, this but (again IIRC) it is allowed. Perhaps the jury could even call the attorney for questioning.
If the above is correct (again IIRC, but I do believe they can), such questions will at least be on record (which may result in encouraging the judge to declare a mistrial).
Why would the prosecution do that in the first place? If they want to let the defendant walk, all they need to do is drop the charges.
SWAG – Double jeopardy. Drop the charges and someone could refile later; blow it and the defendant is safe.
IANAL but I believe you are to decide the case on the facts/information presented and not on the presentation itself. It may be impossible to do in reality but I believe that is part of the charge or instructions usually given.
Why would the jury do anything? They are required to vote not-guilty so long as the prosecution has not proven their case. In the given scenario the prosecution has not proven its case so the jury must vote in favor of the defendant.
Because there can be enough public pressure from the video of the cop shooting the unarmed person that the prosecution can’t just drop charges. But, there is nothing to keep them from being deliberately incompetent to make sure their buddy goes free.
Only in a few jurisdictions, and mostly under conditions that allow the lawyers on either side to object.
In jurisdictions I’ve been in that allow juror questions, it’s only allowed in civil cases. There may be exceptions I haven’t seen.
The same public pressure? Not wanting to destroy their career?
If a prosecutor refuses to press charges in a case that the public feels needs to be tried, they may find themselves under some pressure to do so.
If they do poorly, and the accused goes free, it’s much harder to show that they did wrong.
Whether or not they filed charges is a matter of fact.
Whether they “did their best” is a matter of opinion.
I’d probably bring my questions to the judge.
Given the tremendous disparity in legal knowledge, both specific to whatever the case is and in general between me and the attorneys and judge, I’m fairly doubtful that I’d be able to recognize deliberate incompetence, though.
Like, someone competent who wants to throw a case ought to be able to manage it without looking too obvious. And if someone incompetent is putting on a shitty case, how do you separate incompetence at the job from incompetence at concealing deliberate failure?
Would it be possible to accuse the prosecutor of attempting to pervert the course of justice?
No, I don’t think so. That’s not really a thing.
When my dad was in the army, he took part in a tribunal that was designed to produce an acquittal. Everyone involved agreed that it had been an accident, and A was not responsible for B’s death. But their superiors wanted it to be officially recorded, so that if B’s family raised a fuss, A would be protected by the double jeopardy rule.
Everyone involved? Including “B”?
I served on a jury a while back. We were specifically told that we could not ask questions. This was a trial in York County, PA involving drug and weapon charges.
We were also specifically told that the prosecution would present its case, and the defense would present its case, but anything that they presented were not “facts”. It was up to us, the jury, to determine what the facts were in the case.
So if the prosecution knows that the guy (or girl) is guilty but is deliberately whiffing the case and we can tell, assuming that the judge didn’t do anything about the prosecutor, it would be our job as jurors to ignore the prosecutor’s intentional whiffing of the case and to determine whether or not we thought the defendant was guilty based on what evidence we had available to us.
If we take the example upthread of the prosecution deliberately whiffing the case because it’s a police officer and the video clearly showed the officer guilty, our duty as jurors is to ignore the prosecutor’s nonsense and find the defendant guilty as charged.
As a juror, aren’t I bound to pass a verdict on the evidence presented, not the manner in which it was?
I thought only a grand jury could ask questions.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
How about Contempt of Court?