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

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.

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.

This is what I would do, if her kids came to the trial and any of them were mix breed, I’d send the coal burner up the river.

"Twelve Angry Men" was just on late last night.

Judges are SCARY!

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.

Hear, hear

No it's not, it depends on state law.

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.

Haha 😂😂😂

She’ll 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 doesn’t 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.

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. That’s the main reason most criminal defendants don’t take the stand. Then if you are convicted, criminal convictions are always, no matter what, admissible during the punishment phase of the trial.

I wouldn't GAF about priors if sitting on a jury.

Admissible or not.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Name the states where they are not. And yes, that’s 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 CAN’T reasonably testify.

I’m with slumlord

I think you are wrong. "Reasonable doubt" is the standard I have seen quoted.