Opertunity missed

[MoJo]

I was on a criminal jury this week. The trial resulted in a mistrial because of one juror who seemed to not understand the concept of reasonable doubt. He announced at the beginning of deliberations that the State hadn't convinced him because he didn't believe the witness (victim) because she was a former druggie and didn't believe the detective because he didn't make a recording of the defendant's statement. Try as we may we couldn't get him to budge off his position. We were deadlocked 11-1 to convict. After we were dismissed by the judge, he answered some questions, the defendant was charged with posession of child pornography, other indictments for sexual assault, fleeing the state to avoid prosecution and had three prior felony convictions. Mr. Holdout had a rather sheepish look on his face when he learned that. The defendant could have been sentenced to 25 - life on the pornography charge and life as an habitual criminal which the judge told us would have been presented to us in the punishment phase.

Now, the county has to spend more money for another trial.

[Dave2]

I was on a criminal jury this week. The trial resulted in a mistrial because of one juror who seemed to not understand the concept of reasonable doubt.

Too bad they don't screen for that.

[mgood]

In my opinion, and not being there and all that, if the juror wasn't convinced, he wasn't convinced, and did right by not allowing himself to be swayed by the other jurors.
There'll be another trial. If the guy did it, then it's too bad he wasn't convicted this time, but there'll be another trial.

I was on a jury for when a guy was being tried for sexual assault of his step-daughter.
It's real easy to read the newspaper and say,"They should hang that guy!"
It came down, as it often does, to her saying he did it and him saying he didn't do it.
When I actually had to make the decision, it wasn't so easy. "What if we're wrong? What if she's making it up because she doesn't like him or something? Are we going to send an innocent man to prison? Just what is 'a reasonable doubt'?"
We put him away for 40 years (20 years minimum before he's eligible for parole). But it was not as easy as I thought it would be.
The judge told us, after it was all over, that this is the FIFTH time this case has been tried.
The first was a hung jury.
The second was declared a mistrial for some reason.
The third and fourth both resulted in hung juries.
There was also a case against him in Kansas for raping the same girl. That case was dismissed for reasons we were not told.

Everyone on the jury thought he was guilty.
What we had trouble with was whether or not we knew he was guilty, "beyond a reasonable doubt."
You can't send someone to prison just because you think he's guilty. That's why it took some soul-searching to make the decision.
You know how many convicted rapists have spent years in prison and later it was determined that they were innocent because new evidence surfaced or because the victim changed her story? How would you like to have been on the jury that convicted one of those guys?

[Purplehood]

I have to agree with "mgood" above. I think your juror was a perfect if misguided example of someone that does have a reasonable doubt. It may not have been reasonable in your mind, but it surely was in his. Don't take this as a personal affront, but for all you know 11 of you were wrong.

[MoJo]

I admire the juror for sticking to his guns but, he wouldn't even consider any other position than his. His attitude was "my mind's made up don't confuse me with facts." Even when we asked for evidence to be brought to us to show him and support our opinions he stuck to his guns. Oh well, the defendant is still in jail and a new trial will be in December or January. I'm sorry for those 12 new people to have to go through all the sordid details of this crime. I've seen a lot of really bad stuff in my lifetime (Vietnam, Newspaper photographer, and Child protective worker) this takes the cake.

[tacticool]

If he honestly believed they didn't prove the defendant's guilt, the defendant's priors shouldn't make any difference.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The judge told us, after it was all over, that this is the FIFTH time this case has been tried.
The first was a hung jury.
The second was declared a mistrial for some reason.
The third and fourth both resulted in hung juries.

This is absurd. The law needs to be changed so that either 1) the state gets one shot at trial and either a "not guilty" or hung jury means they can't be tried again ("jeopardy attaches"); or 2) the state can try the case twice and gets to pay all defense costs including the best experts money can buy if they choose to try it a second time. The state is not hampered by the cost of trying the case, but most defendant's can't afford a good attorney the first time around, much less two or more times.

As far as I'm concerned, if you can't convince the jury the first time around, then that's "reasonable doubt" as a matter of law. But after four trials!!? Also, absent physical evidence (injuries, reliable witnesses, etc.) or a confession or at least inconsistent statements by the defendant, how can a jury be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt if it's solely a "he said, she said" case? As an attorney, I know that the official answer is that allow the jury to decide the credibility of each witness, but that's problematic at best. A good looking, likeable or convincing liar will have a distinct advantage over an honest but ugly or unlikeable party/witness. That's how we wind up sending innocent people to prison, including death row, for decades as Harris County is learning. (Those living in or around Harris County know how many people have been exonerated by DNA testing, or prosecutorial misconduct coming to light.)

No, I'm not a bleeding heart liberal; I'm a life-long conservative, death penalty supporting, law and order Republican.

[/soapbox]

Chas.

[Oldgringo]

The judge told us, after it was all over, that this is the FIFTH time this case has been tried.
The first was a hung jury.
The second was declared a mistrial for some reason.
The third and fourth both resulted in hung juries.

This is absurd. The law needs to be changed so that either 1) the state gets one shot at trial and either a "not guilty" or hung jury means they can't be tried again ("jeopardy attaches"); or 2) the state can try the case twice and gets to pay all defense costs including the best experts money can buy if they choose to try it a second time. The state is not hampered by the cost of trying the case, but most defendant's can't afford a good attorney the first time around, much less two or more times.

As far as I'm concerned, if you can't convince the jury the first time around, then that's "reasonable doubt" as a matter of law. But after four trials!!? Also, absent physical evidence (injuries, reliable witnesses, etc.) or a confession or at least inconsistent statements by the defendant, how can a jury be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt if it's solely a "he said, she said" case? As an attorney, I know that the official answer is that allow the jury to decide the credibility of each witness, but that's problematic at best. A good looking, likeable or convincing liar will have a distinct advantage over an honest but ugly or unlikeable party/witness. That's how we wind up sending innocent people to prison, including death row, for decades as Harris County is learning. (Those living in or around Harris County know how many people have been exonerated by DNA testing, or prosecutorial misconduct coming to light.)

No, I'm not a bleeding heart liberal; I'm a life-long conservative, death penalty supporting, law and order Republican.

[/soapbox]

Chas.

IANAL; however, that's kinda' what I was thinkin' when I read that post but I didn't want to come across as old and ignorant or nothin'. Ain't there something about "Double Jeopardy" in the Constitution?

[Hoi Polloi]

IANAL; however, that's kinda' what I was thinkin' when I read that post but I didn't want to come across as old and ignorant or nothin'. Ain't there something about "Double Jeopardy" in the Constitution?

I believe double jeopardy covers you after being found not guilty. It doesn't cover hung juries where a verdict couldn't be reached.

[WildBill]

The law needs to be changed so that either 1) the state gets one shot at trial and either a "not guilty" or hung jury means they can't be tried again ("jeopardy attaches"); or 2) the state can try the case twice and gets to pay all defense costs including the best experts money can buy if they choose to try it a second time. The state is not hampered by the cost of trying the case, but most defendant's can't afford a good attorney the first time around, much less two or more times.

That is also why some innocent people plead guilty to a lesser charge and get punished for a crime they did not commit.

[A-R]

@mgood and @chas .... those are two of the most though provoking posts I've read in a long time.

@Mojo - thanks for starting the thread, very interesting reading.

I've never sat on a jury. Been called to duty twice, but dismissed each time - once in the "big room" (guess there weren't enough cases that day) and once in the courtroom when the two lawyers had both agreed on 12 people plus a few alternates before they even got to me.

[OldSchool]

The law needs to be changed so that either 1) the state gets one shot at trial and either a "not guilty" or hung jury means they can't be tried again ("jeopardy attaches"); or 2) the state can try the case twice and gets to pay all defense costs including the best experts money can buy if they choose to try it a second time. The state is not hampered by the cost of trying the case, but most defendant's can't afford a good attorney the first time around, much less two or more times.

That is also why some innocent people plead guilty to a lesser charge and get punished for a crime they did not commit.