|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44,146
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44,146 |
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.
I was on a hung jury in a murder trial a few years back. It's why I will not sit on another one. Couple dipschit jurists just like the above could not see the evidence in front of them. Didn't want to see those "boys" (defendants) harmed. Meanwhile, one of these "boys" had put a S&W .40 cal behind another "boy's" ear and shot another "boy", the "lucky" one, in the back as he was trying to escape into the house, putting him in a wheelchair for life. There are dipschits out there, and some end up on juries. Some even voted for Biden.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want. Rehabilitation is way overrated. Orwell wasn't wrong. GOA member disappointed NRA member 24HCF SEARCH
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 901
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 901 |
with out knowing how the judge instructed the jury i can not say how i would vote. your instructions may include that you disregard certain testimony.
or there could be some unknown little detail of law that you are told that you can or cannot consider guiding your decision. in other words the judges instructions could pin you in a corner and force you to vote a certain way.
if convicted then the penalty phase will be judged-again the instructions witll guide your decision.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 66,839
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 66,839 |
This is what I would do, if her kids came to the trial and any of them were mix breed, Iโd send the coal burner up the river.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 38,851
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 38,851 |
"Twelve Angry Men" was just on late last night.
Not a real member - just an ordinary guy who appreciates being able to hang around and say something once in awhile.
Happily Trapped In the Past (Thanks, Joe)
Not only a less than minimally educated person, but stupid and out of touch as well.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60,730
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60,730 |
These premises insured by a Sheltie in Training ,--- and Cooey.o "May the Good Lord take a likin' to you"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,657
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,657 |
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? First, you, as the jury, are charged with using evidence presented in the instant case only not past deeds. If the state evidence meets the beyond a reasonable doubt standard then a conviction is warranted. As to the sentencing phase, if you are part of that phase of the trial there is some room to consider prior, similar bad acts but the trial judge would provide further, clarifying guidance to you.
The way life should be.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,817
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,817 |
ignore the priors.....make your decision solely on the evidence presented. Hear, hear
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,021
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,021 |
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? Surprised the defense allowed her priors and pending case to be introduced in trial. Unheard of No it's not, it depends on state law.
A wise man is frequently humbled.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,155
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,155 |
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 was wondering how they knew about the priors. I guess it should count but maybe not 60 years worth. She does show signs of being and unrepentant thief.
Fight fire, save lives, laugh in the face of danger.
Stupid always finds a way.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 21,167
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 21,167 |
This is what I would do, if her kids came to the trial and any of them were mix breed, Iโd send the coal burner up the river. Haha ๐๐๐
Ping pong balls for the win. Once you've wrestled everything else in life is easy. Dan Gable I keep my circle small, Iโd rather have 4 quarters than 100 pennies.
Ainโt easy havin pals.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,790
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,790 |
Sheโll be convicted. The jury will be pissed at her for wasting its time when they find out she had the prior larcenies and hammer her.
If she is someone you care about, she needs to take a deal. If she insists on a trial or the offer is such that she doesnโt have a choice, she needs to listen to her attorney and not take the stand. If her defense is such that she must take the stand to explain herself, she needs to take a fricking deal.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,790
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,790 |
Just so everyone knows, if one chooses to take the stand in his own defense during a trial, then yes, his prior convictions are admissible. Thatโs the main reason most criminal defendants donโt take the stand. Then if you are convicted, criminal convictions are always, no matter what, admissible during the punishment phase of the trial.
Last edited by JoeBob; 12/01/20.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424
Campfire Sage
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 |
I wouldn't GAF about priors if sitting on a jury.
Admissible or not.
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual. Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit. My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,913
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,913 |
From the ones i have been on they don't introduce priors till after finding of guilt or not guilty.
In the sentencing phase all bets are off.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 955
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 955 |
If she has multiple theft convictions, her credibility is shot. If her defense relies on her word, it is very likely to be a conviction. As far as sentencing, a theft is not the most serious compared to some others. However, this is her 4th or 5th time (getting caught). She won't get 60 years but she will probably do some time depending on past sentences that didn't deter her and depending on the value of the items stolen. She is not in a good position.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 955
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 955 |
Just so everyone knows, if one chooses to take the stand in his own defense during a trial, then yes, his prior convictions are admissible. Thatโs the main reason most criminal defendants donโt take the stand. Then if you are convicted, criminal convictions are always, no matter what, admissible during the punishment phase of the trial. That depends on the state. You are overgeneralizing why people choose not to testify. Otherwise, I agree with you. I think she is in a really bad position.
Last edited by Theeck; 12/01/20.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,854
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,854 |
Sheโll be convicted. The jury will be pissed at her for wasting its time when they find out she had the prior larcenies and hammer her.
If she is someone you care about, she needs to take a deal. If she insists on a trial or the offer is such that she doesnโt have a choice, she needs to listen to her attorney and not take the stand. If her defense is such that she must take the stand to explain herself, she needs to take a fricking deal. We had just returned to the jury room from lunch when the clerk popped her head into the doorway and told us not to get comfortable. The judge was just finishing up with pretrial motions, we'd be going to the courtroom shortly for jury selection. Over three hours later the clerk came back to heard us into court. We all take our seats, the defendant leans over to her lawyer and says something to him. Next thing we know the defense attorney is asking the judge if he can approach the bench. After a short conference between the judge, prosecutor and the defense attorney the judge tells us to go back to the jury room and wait for him, he'll be in shortly to explain what was happening. Judge Crane walks into the jury room and chuckles. He thanks us for our service and explains that the defendant saw the pissed off look on our faces when we walked in and copped a plea. She figured her chances were better with the judge than us.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,790
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,790 |
Just so everyone knows, if one chooses to take the stand in his own defense during a trial, then yes, his prior convictions are admissible. Thatโs the main reason most criminal defendants donโt take the stand. Then if you are convicted, criminal convictions are always, no matter what, admissible during the punishment phase of the trial. That depends on the state. You are overgeneralizing why people choose not to testify. Otherwise, I agree with you. I think she is in a really bad position. Name the states where they are not. And yes, thatโs the reason most people cannot testify for themselves. There are other reasons why one might not choose to do so, but that is the reason most CANโT reasonably testify.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 23,686
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 23,686 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 32,066
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 32,066 |
ignore the priors.....make your decision solely on the evidence presented. The proof must beyond a shadow of a doubt. I think you are wrong. "Reasonable doubt" is the standard I have seen quoted.
The only true cost of having a dog is its death.
|
|
|
|
100 members (5sdad, 673, 406_SBC, 444Matt, 7mm_Loco, 450yukon, 13 invisible),
2,203
guests, and
786
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,173
Posts18,465,381
Members73,925
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|