Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Jury trial question.....

Let's say you're on a jury for a felony larceny case. The facts are slightly merky depending on how credible you find the defendant but the verdict could reasonably go either way. The defendant is a pretty young mom. She takes the stand in her own defense. Then on cross you find out she has 4 prior larceny convictions, 2 of which are felonies, and one of which was pending when this alleged crime happened. She is facing up to 60 years on this incident, several different charges one crime.

How likely are you to be swayed by her prior convictions to find her guilty in this case?
How likely are you to use it to hammer her on sentencing despite her being a pretty young mom?

Was that evidence argued, or did you discover it?

Pretty young mom means nothing.

Me?......not likely. 😉

Violence, especially directed at children, women, elderly, disabled.....I’m likely. Theft without force?.....🙄

The evidence relies on the credibility of different witnesses. If you believe several prosecution witnesses, then she is guilty. If you believe her, then you can find her not guilty. Without her testimony, she has no defense. So the whole defense comes down to her credibility, which tends to be impeached by her record of felonies and crimes of moral terpitude.

1. Very
2. Pretty young mom has nothing to do with it.

60 years for larceny

Holy fook, Singapore?

each count 20 years

I didn't think prior convictions were supposed to be brought up in an active case, and could be grounds for dismissal if it happens.

I would have to see the testimony for myself to answer..

There are statutes to cover multiple offenses. Follow the law as it applies.

That was the case in the last trial I was a jury member.

can be used to impeach the credibility of any witness

ignore the priors.....make your decision solely on the evidence presented. The proof must beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I believe he's talking about the defendant.

but that includes the defendant if they testify

She's bound to be guilty 'r she wouldn't be here! Starboard gun...FIRE!



P

Actually, it's reasonable doubt.....

Surprised the defense allowed her priors and pending case to be introduced in trial. Unheard of

Didn't the judge tell you to not discuss the case with anyone and to not use social media? That is a pretty standard instruction these days.

Interesting question you're posing.

Did the judge give thorough instructions as to how to evaluate the evidence in regards to the laws of the jurisdiction?

Juries can be a fickle beast. I know of one case where a likely guilty party was off the hook due to a hung jury. Hung because one member decided to think along the lines of "well, he might have done this and not what the evidence shows. It's what I would have done"

I'd have to base a decision on the facts of the case as presented. If the priors were introduced and allowed to stand, then I'd have to take that into consideration. In the case you mention, I'd have to consider the veracity of the prosecution witnesses also, and perhaps their motives if any.

To be sure this is hypothetical and I'm not sitting on any jury.