I was on a murder jury several years ago and found the whole experience strange. Whether or not the defendant had done the killing wasn't in question. What we were focused on was what, if any, form of illegal homicide had occured - from 1st-degree murder down to involuntary manslaughter. We were given a copy of the law (all potentially relevant statutes) and that was it. We had to figure out what exactly constituted "malice aforethought" etc. without any decent explanation like you would get in a class. It made me wonder if that was the theory - just throw 12 people in a room with the evidence and the law books and they will sort it out through the "magic" of the jury-deliberation process.\n\nI would especially appreciate good sources where I can go to read about this.
218530
Many Americans regard the jury system as a concrete expression of crucial democratic values, including the principles that all citizens who meet minimal qualifications of age and literacy are equally competent to serve on juries; that jurors should be selected randomly from a representative cross section of the community; that no citizen should be denied the right to serve on a jury on account of race, religion, sex, or national origin; that defendants are entitled to trial by their peers; and that verdicts should represent the conscience of the community and not just the letter of the law. The jury is also said to be the best surviving example of direct rather than representative democracy. In a direct democracy, citizens take turns governing themselves, rather than electing representatives to govern for them.\n\nOne major area of concern is whether jurors understand and follow the legal instructions given to them by the judge. In a typical case, the judge instructs the jury about the laws governing the case only after all the evidence has been presented. By then, jurors may already have made up their minds. Another problem is that these instructions are written using a complicated legal language that is not easy for most people to understand. To make matters worse, jurors in many jurisdictions do not receive a written copy of the instructions and are therefore forced to learn them by listening to the judge read them aloud. Several states, including Arizona, Illinois, and New York, are currently undertaking revisions of their jury instructions in an effort to make them more comprehensible.\n\nHere are some good reference materials:\n\nJury Manual: A Guide for Prospective Jurors, William R. Pabst (Metro Publishing, 1985)\n\nThe Jury: Trial and Error in the American Courtroom, Stephen J. Adler (Times Books, Random House, 1994)\n\nWe, The Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy, Jeffrey Abramson (Basic Books, 1994)\n\nThe American Jury, Harry Kolven, Jr. and Hans Zeisel (University of Chicago, 1970)\n\nAdditionally  www.nolo.com is also a great reference that is on the web.\n\nHope that you are able to find what you are looking for!\n\nLindsay
159581
Back then...some time ago....Crime was lower, hood looms didn't carry guns...one did not get sued for interfering in tricky situations...those were the good old days...Long gone.\nNow people are so desensitized that nothing faces them,they don't want to be bothered,don't want to get involved , so what if a crime is being committed...Turn away,close your eyes...make pretend it doesn't happen...that sadly is the norm now these days.\nIf I would have seen a drunk or anyone bother another human being that is incapable of defending him/herself, I would kick some serious A$$...been there done that and had to report to the police.Charges were dropped.\nWe need to watch out for each other...get involved...I do.
263467
Since this is purely hypothetical and for academic discussion and not legal advice I will try to answer.\n\nI believe you cannot blame the state because the jury would be the one who actually imposed a sentence and ruled on the guilt. However if in fact the husband was exonerated, there might be a malpractice claim against his defense attorney.
419043
I'm in the UK but the basic principles are much the same. \n\nDouble Jeopardy means that you cannot be tried for exactly the same crime twice - particularly murder. For crimes such as this, a person must be found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" (this is known as the "burden of proof").\n\nFor wrongful death, the burden of proof is lower because a wrongful death suit is a civil action (rather than a criminal prosecution). For civil actions the burden of proof merely requires that they be found guilty "on the balance of probabilities" - in other words an element of reasonable doubt is permitted.\n\nWrongful death actions often occur after a criminal murder trial has failed through lack of sufficient evidence to prove guilt even though there is a strong suspicion that the accused person is responsible for the death.\n\nIncidentally, here in the UK there has recently been the first conviction under Double Jeopardy. The law was recently changed allowing a person to be tried a second time after having been found not guilty at their first trial. A second trial is now permitted if significant new evidence is brought forward which brings into question the verdict at the first trial. This is basically in response to advances in DNA and forensic science.
506990
I wouldn't but that is me.\n\nI have served on jury duty before where I was the only one saying not guilty. My reason was because there was not an eye witness, no dna evidence and questionable circumstantial evidence. I was not going to convict a person based on motive only.\n\nMeaning the only reason the others wanted to convict him was because he had 'reason' to commit the crime.
99639
LOL!!!! :D too funny! :D I don't recommend it, justice has a way of serving itself, trust me. \n\nWhen I was about 10 years old, there was a kid that saw me walking home from a friends house, he kept throwing dirt clods at me and hiding in some construction ditch, I ignored him and he kept doing it, :D Guess what? The little moron fell backwards into the ditch and well, the bad part was he split his head open, he needed to have stitches, but that shows that justice has a way of serving itself. His dad happened to be driving by, and saw the kid fall. He asked me about it and I told him that he was throwing dirt clods at me and he fell..the kid got busted for that as well. \n\nLeave it a lone, two wrongs don't make a right and he will get his in due time. :D
466835
Think of the perfect murder.  How would you pull it off?  Would you try to make it look like an accident, or make it so there is no evidence (even weapons, an obvious cause of death, etc.).  Next create your hero, and give him some trait that shows how only he could solve the case.  Next, find some way to discover how the crime was pulled off, obviously, no crime is perfect.  This is a pretty good formula to work by, and will give some pretty good results if you're patient.
492736
I received my concealed carry permit in the state of Arizona, and we discussed when taking another life is "justifiable"  here are some of the things we discussed.  If you approach any of the scenes mentioned, with your weapon drawn, and it elimiates the threat, ie the perpetrator leaves, then you are NOT JUSTIFIED to shoot.  However, if you approach, and the act continues, you are justified (in the state of arizona) to shoot to kill.\n\nCommission of Rape\nKidnapping\nArson to an occupied structure\nAnytime someone is within 21ft of you and closing, has a deadly weapon where if your weapon is not used, you may die\n\nAlong with a few others, however that last one is a biggie...if someone is charging you with a knife, you have a gun drawn, and they raise up to stab you, you are legal to kill.  Now lets say you come up on someone who is raping a woman, you draw your gun, and say hey stop what youre doing...they guys stands up and runs away.  Your weapon has eliminated the threat, and therefore, you are NOT justified to shoot to kill.\n\nAnother one is that you are walking down the street, you see 4 guys taking turns beating another guy.  Hes on the ground, defenseless, and clearly not putting up a fight.  They have bats or knives or some sort of weapon.  If you dont approach the situation, that person may die.  So you say, hey guys, dont you think hes had enough?  Leave him alone.  They turn around to you, and begin to approach you with bats/knives etc in hand, you draw your weapon.  If they begin to commence and attack, and are within 21ft of you, you shoot to kill the biggest one first I was told.  His buddies if they are smart, probably will not go after you.\n\nAlso what I found interesting is that it is illegal to shoot to mame, IE shoot to just hurt someone, shoot them in the leg etc...if you are going to fire on someone, you must shoot to kill.  If you are interested further, check out local gun laws, and get a concealed carry permit, they will review everything with you as to when you can or cannot fire on someone.
382297
I have had a mix of experiences with the police and the justice system.  After all, the police and the justice system are (is?) made up of people like you and me.  I would say that the people that I have personally known who are police officers or lawyers/judges do have a greater commitment to make their community a better place than the average book store clerk, college student, or ski instructor.\n\nThe only time I served on a jury, the District Attorney and her staff were prepared and professional.  The police officers, prison officials, doctors, etc. who gave testimony at this trial were thoughtful in their responses and demeanor.  The convicted criminal (who was bringing suit to get out of jail early) remains behind bars.   Believe me, the country is a much better place with this criminal behind bars than out in the community!
540188
Let me be honest.  The laws no longer make the victim responsible for testimony, in most states, so she is really quite powerless to change the report.  The DA now has the case and they will be determining the outcome, not the victim.  \n\nYes, people can change, but abusive partners usually don't UNLESS they are agressively prosecuted and receive "punishment" for their crime.  \n\nI won' t go into the long history of how this all came about, but I will tell you it came about because 65% of male/female relationships involve violence.  I, myself, was one of those statistics, over 25 years ago.  I had to leave, or someone was going to die.  He just recently did the same thing to his new wife.  BUT HE HAS NEVER EVER BEEN TO JAIL FOR THE CRIME.  EVER.  \n\nI personally prepared testimony for a Senate hearing committee to have the laws changed where the perp MUST be arrested and agressively prosecuted.  \n\n25 years later I see the damage done to my children b/c the man simply would not keep his hands to himself.  He blames everyone else, especially me and his new wife, but he has never had to face consequences.\n\nI beg you, I implore you, get the help that is offered to you.  Keep your hands to yourself.  If alcohol or drugs figures any way into this scenario, get help for that as well.  \n\nI really would like to see people change, truly, but my sympathy lies primarily with the woman and the children.  They are the vulnerable.\n\nI wish you the best, I truly do.\n\nGood luck.\n\nPeace.
98539
I sure hope you read this and not just let it go by. Let me ask you this, lets say you are married and have a family you leave for a while, an leave them alone an someone kills them, so the laws ask you do you what to fry them or let them do a experiment that we are doing on cancer treatment that we think is the cure. After doing the experiment and it is over with, they have a cure and the person is released just how would you feel. Do you think justice was served. I don't so, because the person made headlines twice, once for killing your family and another for helping to find the cure for cancer.
284030
Yes.\n\nI witnessed an altercation between people in two cars.  One car had a 20-something guy and his mother, and the other had this muscle-head/roid-ragey dude.  The first people pulled to the median after this guy was tailgating them and honking and stuff, and the other guy pulled into a parking lot nearby.  He got out of his car in a rage, ripped off his shirt (he was very muscular and apparently really proud of it), and he went running over to the other car and slammed his hand into the side of it so hard that it put a dent in the metal of the door.  He also reached in and tried to punch the guy inside the car.\nI called the police and reported the incident.  They took a statement from me at the scene.\nMonths later, someone served a subpoena on me (I was going to have to testify about the incident) but then I called back and they said it had been resolved.\n\nI also witnessed a hit-and-run accident involving minimal damage.  I turned around and followed the car that had broken the right-of-way (he ran a red light and got clipped by someone who had the green, but he kept going).  I got his license number, went home and called the local police for that area.  They thanked me and told me that someone had indeed reported being hit there.  I told them what I'd seen and offered to be a witness but they did not end up needing me, apparently.\n\nI'm no snitch, but I don't like it when people do harm to other people, or get all aggro on them, and don't get in trouble for it.  People need to be responsible for their actions, and I have no qualms about telling what I saw when someone does a dickish thing to someone else.\n\n\n-Jeffrey
371416
I was on one several years ago. It was a big drug trial and also money laundering.  I was a little scared because it involved taped recordings from Drug Lords in other countries that had called this big time dealer in NC.  Because I lived more than 2 hours away from where the trial was being held, they put me and others too, in hotel rooms.  We had guards at the hotel.  It was a dangerous case.  We couldn't talk about it outside the courtroom.  Also, what really scared me was the fact that though we were constantly guarded throughout the trial, after it we found the people guilty, the protection was automatically stopped. I wasn't worried until the court bailiffs said that we shouldn't wait around too long at the courthouse.....
355152
The whole thing is very tragic. It's way to early to tell what happened. I do know that when Officers have made the desicion to use deadly force, they are trained to fire until the threat is neutralized, no matter if it takes one bullet or several hundred. A vehicle attempting to run down an Officer would be justification for the use of deadly force. Like I have said though, this is too early to tell and no one should make any "Knee Jerk" judgements until all the evidence is in and the investigation is complete.
220600
It sounds like she has a very twisted understanding of "reasonable doubt".  The phrase, as you mentioned, is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which means that prudent/reasonable men, after evaluating all the evidence presented, are clearly, entirely, and morally convinced of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.  It is, in effect, saying "there is no doubt", but since we all make mistakes, we can only say we are convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt".  The evidence either adds up to guilt or innocence, or does not.  A jury can not imagine evidence to find a person guilty if there was not enough evidence to support a guilty verdict.  That's what the prosecutor is doing here, if what you say is true and I understand it correctly.  "Reasonable doubt" is a standard that suggests evidence is lacking to convict or acquit -- NOT that reasonable persons can have it (doubt) and convict or acquit anyway.  (That is, if a jury does not have sufficient evidence to convict a defendant, they can not imagine evidence to convict.  If there was not enough evidence to find the defendant guilty, the defendant is innocent/acquitted.)\n\n\n"Reasonable doubt.  If, upon proof, there is reasonable doubt remaining, the accused is entitled to the benefit of it." -- Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed.  It is not "okay" to have doubt and convict anyway -- which is what the prosecutor is trying to claim, it seems.\n\nLawyers can say almost anything they want in closing arguments.  The defense should correct this misunderstanding in its closing argument.  The judge, in delivering instructions to the jury, should define reasonable doubt and beyond reasonable doubt.  The defense should (have) requested this.\n\nIf you want legal definitions, e-mail me & I can type them out for you.\n\nIf an Appeal is made, you can mention all these concerns - whether it is with your present attorney or another.  Try to be sure, the judge instructs the jury properly.\n\n\nNOTE:  I am NOT a lawyer.\n\n(I hope this is understandable - I'm pretty tired.)\nE-mail me if I can help in any way.\n\nPeace.\n\nP.S.  The circle with the quarter shaded in sounds like an argument for the defense.  If I were the defense attorney, I might use it [repetition] and say "here's your doubt!  And if there is that much doubt, you can not convict!"  (And of course, mention the evidence lacking or against prosecution.)
607338
If it is the opening speech give a summary of what the case is about:\n\nLadies and Gentleman of the jury today stands before you an innocent man( or woman ),_name here__________, accused of ___________. During the course of these proceedings we will demonstrate that _______________ could not possibly have done ____________________. Why? Because on the day of the incident ___________________ was not at the crime site. Further, ________________ did not own a weapon. And the police didn't ask this one important  question:________________.\nThank you.
308849
Guilty! And, yeah, I've studied the case for over a week, so I'm not just saying this randomly. What stuck in my mind the most was they had his DNA! And you know what one of the jury members said? He thought that anyone could have the same DNA... So that was not a determining factor for him... That should really tell you that you want way more than just one college grad. in the jury when you're being prosecuted. There was so much more ridiculous stuff happening in that case! Like the Bronco chase, the money the passports, the note! And why wasn't it admitted? Cause some retards at the gas station it got towed to decided to take pics in it! So, the evidence was contaminated, and I agree it may have been, but imagine all the evidence that was there and was not used for some reason. The racist cop ploy... Man, some of the best lawyers in US couldn't believe when the prosecution lost that case. I guess you can't really stand a chance against the dream team.