- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Unanimous Juries- How ya votin and why?
Posted on 10/27/18 at 8:49 am to Teddy Ruxpin
Posted on 10/27/18 at 8:49 am to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
Anyways, as foreman I didn't need them to convict for Murder 2 so we got out of there.
I have no idea your specific group, so no shade towards you but that kind of sentiment always worries me in non-unanimous discussion.
1
Posted on 10/27/18 at 8:56 am to RonLaFlamme
quote:
I will almost always vote to limit the power of the state. Taking someone’s freedoms away should require the highest of thresholds to be cleared. Unanimous jury is an excellent check against the state.
While I agree with if possible limiting the power of the state. This goes more towards limiting the power of our individual rights. The "state" is not taking someone's freedom away, we the people of the state have decided to take away their freedom because they have infringed upon ours.
The state is bringing the charges on behalf of the people, but ultimately from the grand jury to the final verdict the power lies with the people.
After reading and reviewing the law, I am okay with someone being convicted of murder on a 10-2 verdict. However I think their appeals in only those cases where it is not unanimous, should be fast-tracked and placed ahead of unanimous verdicts. The horror stories people talk about in jury deliberation is an all to frequent reality.
Posted on 10/27/18 at 9:02 am to The Johnny Lawrence
I voted early and voted for unanimous jury decisions.
If anybody is convicted of a crime, there should be no reasonable doubt in any juror’s mind.
If anybody is convicted of a crime, there should be no reasonable doubt in any juror’s mind.
Posted on 10/27/18 at 9:03 am to reedus23
quote:
What I say is a decision based on evidence, you say is a decision based on emotion.
Who is right?
The other 10-11 who listened to you state your case and decided you're full of shite.
Posted on 10/27/18 at 9:04 am to TheHarahanian
quote:I'd be curious to see how many cases the evidence is overwhelming and still people refuse to decide leaving a 10-2 type situation
If anybody is convicted of a crime, there should be no reasonable doubt in any juror’s mind.
Posted on 10/27/18 at 9:07 am to ThePTExperience1969
I said 1 in a thousand
Posted on 10/27/18 at 9:08 am to PrivatePublic
quote:
The other 10-11 who listened to you state your case and decided you're full of shite.
The issue is that, in the current paradigm, they didn’t listen to anything. They went back into the jury room, picked a foreman, held an initial vote, saw they had a valid verdict, wrote it down on the jury form, and knocked on the door to summon the deputy.
In a unanimous jury paradigm, the majority would at least have to listen to the argument of the other side, and both sides would have the opportunity to incluence the other. Frankly, I think that’s what most people believe goes on now, and it simply isn’t.
Posted on 10/27/18 at 9:10 am to tduecen
quote:
I'd be curious to see how many cases the evidence is overwhelming and still people refuse to decide leaving a 10-2 type situation
As I mentioned in the previous thread on the subject, the study circulated among DAs had the number of hung juries projected to increase by 6%. Considering how few juries currently hang, that’s an astoundingly small increase in real terms.
Posted on 10/27/18 at 9:21 am to Joshjrn
quote:
the study circulated among DAs had the number of hung juries projected to increase by 6%. Considering how few juries currently hang, that’s an astoundingly small increase in real terms.
I honestly have a problem with this, even if it only increased by 1%. That 1% or 6% is too high when it is murderers. Again my thought is in the case of 10-2 jury verdicts or 11-1 those should be fast-tracked and pushed ahead of unanimous verdicts in the appeals process.
Posted on 10/27/18 at 10:04 am to CoastTrashTiger
quote:
I honestly have a problem with this, even if it only increased by 1%. That 1% or 6% is too high when it is murderers. Again my thought is in the case of 10-2 jury verdicts or 11-1 those should be fast-tracked and pushed ahead of unanimous verdicts in the appeals process.
Does it really bother you that much that said “murderer” would simply remain incarcerated (very, very few individuals indicted for murder make bond) and get retried?
If you think a hung jury means the person walks, you’re wrong. If you have that much of an issue with them being retried, I simply don’t understand.
Posted on 10/27/18 at 10:20 am to TheHarahanian
quote:
If anybody is convicted of a crime, there should be no reasonable doubt in any juror’s mind.
But that is assuming that their dissent is based on reasonable doubt.
What if it is based on unreasonable doubt?
If reasonable doubt truly exists then it should never reach 10 votes.
This post was edited on 10/27/18 at 10:31 am
Posted on 10/27/18 at 10:29 am to LSURussian
quote:
Nah, there could be 1 or 2 jurors who don't base their opinion on the evidence but on emotions instead.
Exactly.
No for me.
Posted on 10/27/18 at 10:32 am to Joshjrn
quote:
Does it really bother you that much that said “murderer” would simply remain incarcerated (very, very few individuals indicted for murder make bond) and get retried?
It does not "bother me that much" it bothers me a little, that yes tax payer dollars could very well be spent because one idiot, bigot, racist, or immoral jackass when it is 11-1 and they only says not guilty because of race or whatever whim they come up with. Im not saying it happens a lot, very little. But obviously you are in the legal profession in some capacity
. Like I said I have given what I would do by law make it to where on 11-1 or 10-2 in the types of crimes they are talking about if the defendant would like to can get his appeals fast-tracked. I know the 6th could very well then come into play with what I am proposing. Just my opinion
Posted on 10/27/18 at 10:36 am to CoastTrashTiger
quote:
It does not "bother me that much" it bothers me a little, that yes tax payer dollars could very well be spent because one idiot, bigot, racist, or immoral jackass when it is 11-1 and they only says not guilty because of race or whatever whim they come up with.
I guess I understand your position. I simply find it surprising so many people are willing to cut the government slack in making it easier to convict in every single case, just to make sure they don’t have to spend a fraction of a fraction of a percent more to retry a few cases.
Just seems antithetical to our founding principles.
This post was edited on 10/27/18 at 10:37 am
Posted on 10/27/18 at 10:37 am to AllemanWC
quote:
I’ve served on a jury twice. Stunning why people vote the way they do.
First time serving was a murder trial. Video of defendant being interrogated is shown. He lays out entire story start to finish. Easy guilty. This guy votes not guilty because a woman who helped set up dead guy got immunity for testifying. He said he she’s not going to jail then the other guy won’t either if he can help it.
Second was a murder also. 5 people testified to witnessing defendant shoot dead guy. Easy guilty again. Guy votes not guilty because he says there are too many black folks in prison and he wasn’t going to send another one to prison. Other jury members asked if he thought the guy was guilty. He laughed and said hell yes but I’m not sending him to prison.
I don’t favor unanimous juries for these reasons.
It’s stories like this that should make 10-2 the rule everywhere else. I don’t trust the retarded and partisan population to reason effectively anymore. Sadly.
Posted on 10/27/18 at 10:41 am to CoastTrashTiger
I would also like to address the appellate issue. The standard on overturning a jury verdict is that no reasonable jury, when viewing the evidence most favorably to the state, could have returned a verdict of guilty, based on the law and evidence.
It’s a near impossible standard to overcome, which is why so few verdicts are overturned on appeal on that argument. The idea that appellate courts are positioned to fix bad jury verdicts is simply not reflective of reality.
It’s a near impossible standard to overcome, which is why so few verdicts are overturned on appeal on that argument. The idea that appellate courts are positioned to fix bad jury verdicts is simply not reflective of reality.
Posted on 10/27/18 at 10:51 am to Joshjrn
quote:
I simply find it surprising so many people are willing to cut the government slack in making it easier to convict
My personal belief is when the case is called, and its "The People vs. so and so. I believe those two are also a part of the founding principles. Personally with the way technological innovation, forensic science and how the gathering and collecting of evidence improves seemingly yearly. That has truly made it much "easier" IMO.
Posted on 10/27/18 at 10:54 am to CoastTrashTiger
quote:
My personal belief is when the case is called, and its "The People vs. so and so. I believe those two are also a part of the founding principles. Personally with the way technological innovation, forensic science and how the gathering and collecting of evidence improves seemingly yearly. That has truly made it much "easier" IMO.
Yeah, it’s definitely “State of Louisiana v. John Doe”
Posted on 10/27/18 at 11:02 am to Joshjrn
quote:
Yeah, it’s definitely “State of Louisiana v. John Doe
But the jury is composed of "the people" and it is their power that is trying to be limited
This post was edited on 10/27/18 at 11:03 am
Posted on 10/27/18 at 11:03 am to Joshjrn
Wow! You're still on here trying to justify your profession? You must be all in to get more work from passing the amendment proposal....
And even your own link says only 4 DAs have publicly supported the amendment and someone claimed 6 more support it but won't go public with their support.
That means 32 out of 42 DAs in Louisiana either don't support the amendment or they won't publicly support it.
Even a law school graduate has to acknowledge that means my original point is closer to being accurate than your attempt at a "gotcha" claim.
You can relax. I'm confident the amendment will likely pass.
Every newspaper in the state and several out-of-state liberal rags are supporting it. Along with the La. Bar Association, the ACLU, the Southern Law Poverty Center, the NAACP, Together Baton Rouge and every black elected and non-elected government official in the state. And, oh yeah, 10 out of 42 DAs.
That's an impressive list of usual suspects wanting to change the law to make it more difficult to convict felons. It will pass....
quote:
Well, after you’ve been so impressively wrong on this thread
quote:That's redundant....
bad lawyers
quote:Okay, so the article I read and linked from a month ago was out of date. Are you so desperate that you're making such a big deal out of that?
How’s that NO DA support assertion going for you, by the way?
And even your own link says only 4 DAs have publicly supported the amendment and someone claimed 6 more support it but won't go public with their support.
That means 32 out of 42 DAs in Louisiana either don't support the amendment or they won't publicly support it.
Even a law school graduate has to acknowledge that means my original point is closer to being accurate than your attempt at a "gotcha" claim.
You can relax. I'm confident the amendment will likely pass.
Every newspaper in the state and several out-of-state liberal rags are supporting it. Along with the La. Bar Association, the ACLU, the Southern Law Poverty Center, the NAACP, Together Baton Rouge and every black elected and non-elected government official in the state. And, oh yeah, 10 out of 42 DAs.
That's an impressive list of usual suspects wanting to change the law to make it more difficult to convict felons. It will pass....
Page 11 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News