I don’t think that this is true. Lawyers on both sides are looking for particular juror types, and both can eliminate jurors for cause, as well as a number of arbitrary eliminations. You were probably eliminated by one side or the other, but doubtfully by both because you were obviously too smart to serve.
It also depends on how honest potential jurors are when the qualifying questions are asked. I actually served on a sexual assault jury (not a statutory or child molesting case, thankfully), and when it came to deliberation, it was quite obvious that several jurors had an overwhelming inclination to believe the cops and the “victim”. In the end, there were enough of us that didn’t find the “victim” or her story credible, and we arrived at a not guilty verdict on all counts.
I’d like to believe that I would have held out with not guilty even in the face of strong resistance from other jurors. I was prepared to do so.
Having been intimately involved in juror selection from a trial team perspective many times, I respectfully disagree.
And to answer the OP’s question in a completely non-satisfactory way, it depends on the law I’d been given by the judge prior to deliberating. But in my heart, I would not want to convict the person under those circumstances.
It’s hard to see how jury nullification differs from a court clerk refusing to issue marriage licenses because she disagrees with the governing law. If I don’t think I’m going to be able to do my job that the law assigns to me as the juror and follow the governing law, I think it’s my obligation to say so (and disqualify myself) as early in the process as possible.
OK, not really. More what Asimovian said - it wasn’t like he was targetting minors because he was a perv. I don’t know if the concept of “due diligence” applies to trying to be sure you aren’t boinking a minor, but “I saw her birth certificate” should be enough to affect the outcome, morally if not legally.
Unless she was born in Hawaii, in which case it proves NOTHING! NOTHING, I SAY!
I most likely would be dismissed early on and not make it on the case, but I would not find a person who did nothing morally wrong as guilty (as guilty implies they did something morally bad). The court would also have to prove their moral right to punish a person, I don’t believe they have one, and we are accumulating a karmic debt due to punishment based criminal justice system and in that creating more crimes throughout society.
If that’s the case the prosecution presents I’d have to wonder why they brought it to trial. That sounds more like what the defense is going to present. I need to hear both sides.
The issue with hypotheticals like this is it presents facts as they actually occoured. As a jury you don’t get that luxury. You have to determine what the facts actually are.
This is my feeling. But I can’t help but think a decent defense lawyer would be able to argue that the birth certificate was deliberate deception on the part of Claire, and thus would be able to get reasonable doubt if for some reason this went to trial.
What purpose to society would be served by having this man charged? I’m not convinced there’s anything.
I’d say guilty because there is no way a man can mix up a 14 year old girl for a 19 year old. Yeah, he might pretend it but down deep he knew and did the deed.
Jurry nullification is part of the judicial system’s check on legislative and executive overreach the same way that judicial review is. If a law and the way the government enforces that law offend the public’s sensibilities to such a degree the jury can nullify the law by refusing to enforce said law. The same way northern juries refused to convict under the fugitive slave act or to a lessor degree prohibition. Juries don’t issue opinions so jury nullification doesn’t set a pesident but if enough juries refuse to pronounce guilt the prosecutor may eventually give up.
I’d be more likely to believe it if it were a one-night stand. But living together for a month? I work with some of the brightest and most talented 14-year olds in the country and they are still dumb as rocks in a qualitatively different way. You could be fooled for an evening, maybe a weekend of debauchery where there isn’t much talking going on, but not for a month of domestic life.
I guess I would need testimony regarding what he saw on the birth certificate. That the girl might be using a fake name to people she meets on a Greyhound is not so unreasonable, but it’s also not a defense for Tom to figuratively plug his ears up and sing lalalalala when there’s information he doesn’t like. If it was reasonable for him to believe she was lying about her age, then I’d have to vote guilty.
I’m not so sure he could be held guilty just by her appearance or her behavior. I’m currently living with a 40-year-old relative who would be doing a lot better in life if she could upgrade her behavior to 14-year-old standards.
Oh, and just to add on the strict liability issue: I know it’s designed so that pedophiles can’t simply plead ignorance and get off, but I have a real problem with statutory rape defined so narrowly. There are very few crimes that can be committed without intent, and this particular one can get you labeled as a sex offender for the rest of your life. I’m not OK with that.
FWIW, if this case were tried in real life in a strict liability jurisdiction, I don’t think the judge would allow testimony about the fake birth certificate, because it’s not relevant to any element of the crime. The jury would never hear about it.
If reasonable belief is a defense, then it presumably comes in to evidence, but of course if such a defense is available then most of the difficulty of the OP’s question goes away.
Guilty. The parents, that is. Who names one child “Claire” and the other one “Clara”? That’s just asking for trouble right from the get-go. Throw those people in jail.
Nowadays there are a huge number. Perhaps even the majority of them. There should be zero.
If accused “pedophiles” did not actually know their victim was a child (though that’s not actually possible – pedophilia and statutory rape are not the same at all), and they can prove it in court, they aren’t actually pedophiles and should be acquitted. Same with statutory rape, exceeding the speed limit, taking a lawn mower to an endangered bird’s nest, etc. Strict liability is bunk.