Jury verdicts

[Rob Boudrie]

SCOTUS got one right, overturning the "10 of 12 required for conviction" jury laws in Oregon and Louisiana. The dissent is very interesting as it directly states that those laws should not be overturned because of the inconvenience to the states caused by invalidating existing convictions. WTF? The ranks up there with the MA decision regarding traffic court - "a fee of $75 to confront your accuser, even if found not responsible for the violation, is reasonable since the state needs the money" (words to that effect). "States needs" seems to rank up there with "cuz guns".

 

[556USER]

But......the government has our best interests at heart. LOL

 

[Deleted member 67409]

Reading jury venire transcripts was one of my favorite parts of my job last semester.

"Hi, what do you think of guns?"
"What do you not understand about 'shall not be infringed'?"
"Peremptory, judge."

 

[Dennis in MA]

I can't believe there are/were states that allowed convictions on a 10-of-12 basis. WTF???? How do those people watch Law & Order???????

Interesting how it went down. You would have thought it would a slam dunk. Alito, Roberts, Kagan. I wonder how Scalia would have fallen on this one. Clearly the overturning of previous precedent was at issue. (As it should be.)

Supreme Court rules non-unanimous jury verdicts unconstitutional

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that defendants in criminal trials can only be convicted by a unanimous jury, striking down a scheme that has been rejected by every state except one.The cour…

thehill.com

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Clearly the overturning of previous precedent was at issue. (As it should be.)

The issue seemed to be less concern about overturning precedent, but rather overturning convictions. Every 10:2 or 11:1 conviction is now entitled to dismissal or a retrial.

 

[TLB]

The issue seemed to be less concern about overturning precedent, but rather overturning convictions. Every 10:2 or 11:1 conviction is now entitled to dismissal or a retrial.

Good! As you indicated in the OP.

 

[ToddDubya]

What the state needs is the consent of the governed, nothing more.

I didn't know states could even convict on anything less than a unanimous decision from the jury.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

What the state needs is the consent of the governed, nothing more.

I didn't know states could even convict on anything less than a unanimous decision from the jury.

Louisiana is the odd duck when it comes to law, as much is historically based on the Napoleonic code. It only adopted the UCC in 1990. I don't understand the history behind the Oregon jury law though.

 

[Deleted member 67409]

Louisiana is the odd duck when it comes to law, as much is historically based on the Napoleonic code. It only adopted the UCC in1990.

LA's penchant for funky jury verdicts is a holdover from Jim Crow:

Louisiana's legislature changed its Code of Practice to allow for non-unanimous jury verdicts in 1880, during the Jim Crow era. Louisiana's white land owners struggled to replace free slave labor, and the state began leasing convicts to plantation owners. During the 1898 Louisiana constitutional convention, the Louisiana legislature ratified the split verdict law, making it possible to convict defendants on a jury verdict of 9-3. This, in turn, created more convicts (especially freed blacks), and thus increased the numbers available for for-profit convict leasing.

Apodaca v. Oregon - Wikipedia

 

[Dennis in MA]

The issue seemed to be less concern about overturning precedent, but rather overturning convictions. Every 10:2 or 11:1 conviction is now entitled to dismissal or a retrial.

It could get ugly there. Although I'm sure the courts will side with the state on speedy re-trial issues as the courts will have to find time in the first place. I don't see them pulling in temp-judges to run a second shift or anything.

 

[seanc]

The issue seemed to be less concern about overturning precedent, but rather overturning convictions. Every 10:2 or 11:1 conviction is now entitled to dismissal or a retrial.

does it even matter at this point?
In all likelihood unless they are white guys that committed white collar crimes they have probably been released already.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

does it even matter at this point?
In all likelihood unless they are white guys that committed white collar crimes they have probably been released already.

What of cases where the prior conviction was considered in setting the sentence in a later case?

 

[seanc]

What of cases where the prior conviction was considered in setting the sentence in a later case?

I am being facetious..
That said, there seems to be an overwhelming trend to just say "coronavirus" and let every one out. I would suspect that an non unanimous verdicts all now have grounds to appeal. And will need to be retried or plea bargained.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I am being facetious..
That said, there seems to be an overwhelming trend to just say "coronavirus" and let every one out. I would suspect that an non unanimous verdicts all now have grounds to appeal. And will need to be retried or plea bargained.

Another problem with Corona virus is medical examiners are overloaded and just stamping deaths not under medical supervision as "corona virus" and not doing fulll autopsies, tox screens, etc. Makes one wonder if there is a silent uptick in murder schemes.

 

[snax]

People in those states probably get confused when watching '12 Angry Men'

 

[SpaceCritter]

Reading jury venire transcripts was one of my favorite parts of my job last semester.

"Hi, what do you think of guns?"
"What do you not understand about 'shall not be infringed'?"
"Peremptory, judge."

More fun (as a juror): let on that you're in any way, shape, or form a FIJA activist.

 

[seanc]

Another problem with Corona virus is medical examiners are overloaded and just stamping deaths not under medical supervision as "corona virus" and not doing fulll autopsies, tox screens, etc. Makes one wonder if there is a silent uptick in murder schemes.

It's almost as if there be money in declaring everything as Corona related for the medical industry. Or to bulk up the numbers to keep everybody locked down..
Well.,except for all of those "at risk of corona virus" prisoners that they have to let out of the jails..

 

[Rob Boudrie]

More fun (as a juror): let on that you're in any way, shape, or form a FIJA activist.

Or send a note "Your honor, one of our panel has explained the fully informed jury concept to us, and we are requesting your explanation as to what sanction or penalty the court may impose upon jurors who choose a verdict that is in compliance with their moral compass rather than the law?".

More fun (as a juror): let on that you're in any way, shape, or form a FIJA activist.

Or start talking about BATFE policy regarding FLRB relief, misdafelonies, 18 USC 922(g); Logan vs. US; and if civil rights extend beyond voting, holding public office and serving on a jury when being interviewed for a job as a juror.

 

[SpaceCritter]

Or send a note "Your honor, one of our panel has explained the fully informed jury concept to us, and we are requesting your explanation as to what sanction or penalty the court may impose upon jurors who choose a verdict that is in compliance with their moral compass rather than the law?".

Connecticut comes right out and asks you: "Are you able to apply the law as instructed to you by the judge?" My old man was called up - his answer: "Well, it would depend on the instructions of the judge, wouldn't it?" GONE. Like GONE. Not allowed to talk to anyone on the way out.

 

[seanc]

Or send a note "Your honor, one of our panel has explained the fully informed jury concept to us, and we are requesting your explanation as to what sanction or penalty the court may impose upon jurors who choose a verdict that is in compliance with their moral compass rather than the law?".


Or start talking about BATFE policy regarding FLRB relief, misdafelonies, 18 USC 922(g); Logan vs. US; and if civil rights extend beyond voting, holding public office and serving on a jury when being interviewed for a job as a juror.

it is sad.. it seems like those are the people that you would WANT on a jury.

that is how we get “ OJ :searching for Nicole’s real killer.. and other greatest hits”

 

[Len-2A Training]

Connecticut comes right out and asks you: "Are you able to apply the law as instructed to you by the judge?" My old man was called up - his answer: "Well, it would depend on the instructions of the judge, wouldn't it?" GONE. Like GONE. Not allowed to talk to anyone on the way out.

I had something similar. It was civil litigation on a construction job. Judge asks who has had issues with a contractor and then asks each of us one by one to step up to the bench and explain. After that the judge asks me if I could "give benefit of the doubt to a contractor". I paused and answered honestly that I wasn't sure . . . dismissed!

 

[SpaceCritter]

I had something similar. It was civil litigation on a construction job. Judge asks who has had issues with a contractor and then asks each of us one by one to step up to the bench and explain. After that the judge asks me if I could "give benefit of the doubt to a contractor". I paused and answered honestly that I wasn't sure . . . dismissed!

But that's actually reasonable in voir dire. What Connecticut is doing is excluding anyone who may be at all aware of jury rights.

 

[dingbat]

Connecticut comes right out and asks you: "Are you able to apply the law as instructed to you by the judge?" My old man was called up - his answer: "Well, it would depend on the instructions of the judge, wouldn't it?" GONE. Like GONE. Not allowed to talk to anyone on the way out.

But that's actually reasonable in voir dire. What Connecticut is doing is excluding anyone who may be at all aware of jury rights.

Yeah, but they give you an out if they are asking if you are "able to" rather than "will you".

 

[71montess]

OJ Simpson.

 

[SpaceCritter]

Yeah, but they give you an out if they are asking if you are "able to" rather than "will you".

I'd be willing to bet were you to answer in the affirmative then nullify, you'll be looking at perjury and/or contempt regardless.

 

[amm5061]

I had something similar. It was civil litigation on a construction job. Judge asks who has had issues with a contractor and then asks each of us one by one to step up to the bench and explain. After that the judge asks me if I could "give benefit of the doubt to a contractor". I paused and answered honestly that I wasn't sure . . . dismissed!

I had a similar question the one and only time I got called in. It was an assault case, and since I had marked down that I had been a witness in an assault years ago, the judge asked me the same question. I said yes and ended up getting seated for the trial. Unfortunately after sitting through two days of the trial I ended up being designated as an alternate.

Too bad for the kid, I thought he was not guilty. They came back with a not guilty on the bullshit assault with a deadly shod foot charge though.

 

[dingbat]

I'd be willing to bet were you to answer in the affirmative then nullify, you'll be looking at perjury and/or contempt regardless.

Small price to pay for not kneeling to tyranny.

 

[SpaceCritter]

I had a similar question the one and only time I got called in. It was an assault case, and since I had marked down that I had been a witness in an assault years ago, the judge asked me the same question. I said yes and ended up getting seated for the trial. Unfortunately after sitting through two days of the trial I ended up being designated as an alternate.

Too bad for the kid, I thought he was not guilty. They came back with a not guilty on the bullshit assault with a deadly shod foot charge though.

The only time I had to go, it was a suit over an auto accident. As luck would have it, someone rear-ended me some weeks before (minor damage), but their insurance was balking at paying, so my other courthouse chore that day was to get the small claims paperwork. Judge asked, "Are any of you involved in or in the duration of this trial likely to become involved in litigation over an auto accident?" My hand went up. Dismissed.

 

[Len-2A Training]

But that's actually reasonable in voir dire. What Connecticut is doing is excluding anyone who may be at all aware of jury rights.

I won't deny that the judge's question was "reasonable", however since when is a jury supposed to deliver a verdict based on "the benefit of the doubt"? [rhetorical question]

 

[Dennis in MA]

But that's actually reasonable in voir dire. What Connecticut is doing is excluding anyone who may be at all aware of jury rights.

If Mistah Trottah wants to Vowahh Diyahh the jury, I'm sure he's gonna be MOOOOOORE than satisfied.