Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Johann]

Johan said:

This lawyer was well acquainted with the American system with 24 people appointed to be members of the jury and where each side can ask 6 to withdraw. The remaining 12 will decide if the person is guilty or not. The trouble is that these can be swayed in either direction by eloquent oratory. Then it is not longer the law of the land that rules, but the feelings of the few selected individuals.

The above statement is a generalized simplistic statement which  is somewhat inaccurate as are most generalizations that are simplistic, includiing such that I sometimes make. 

Just prior to the jury going into deliberations the judge gives them final instructions as to the law (no eloquent oratory here) and gives them specific instructions as to how the jury is to reach its verdict in accord with the law.  NOTE:  If the jury fails to follow the law the presiding judge and/or an appealate court may throw out the decision of the jury and order a new trial.

While the laws in relation trials often are based up local State law (with the exception of Federal trials) I am not aware of any place where 24 peple are appointed to a jury and after that appointment each side can exclude 6 leaving a jury of 12.  In a typical jury all exclusions are made prior to the establishment of the jury.  Exclusions for cause are unlimited and clearly may exceed 12.  Preemptory challenges are lilmited.  The number allowed will depend upon State law and the type of trial.  E.g.  In one State the number of preemptory challenges ranges from 3 to 15 based upon the type of a trial.  Further, in some types of trail,in some places, a jury may consist of less than 12 people--e.g. 9.

All in all, the lawyer that Johan cited is wrong in much of what was stated, at least wrong in part.

Was he also wrong in what was said about the procedures in our country? Could he have been at a place where 24 were assigned to jury duty?

Did Abraham Lincoln have no influence on the jury when he was a lawyer in Illinois? I have read lots of interesting stories about Abraham Lincoln. Are they not true?

Did I ever say the judge used oratory? How about Abraham Lincoln? He was not a judge in the cases that I recall.

Is the jury following only the law in all trials? Do they have no other choice than the verdict they come to?

[Gregory]

Johnn asked:

Was he also wrong in what was said about the procedures in our country? Could he have been at a place where 24 were assigned to jury duty?

Did Abraham Lincoln have no influence on the jury when he was a lawyer in Illinois? I have read lots of interesting stories about Abraham Lincoln. Are they not true?

Did I ever say the judge used oratory? How about Abraham Lincoln? He was not a judge in the cases that I recall.

Is the jury following only the law in all trials? Do they have no other choice than the verdict they come to?

1)  I have no idea as to whether or not he was wrong about your country.  I have no knowledge on this and I express no opinion.

2) Of course Lincoln influenced the jury.  That is the function of the lawyer for each side--to influence the jury.  However, the judge brings the jury back to the law, and gives the jury very specific instructions as to what to consider and how to decide the case.  If the jury finds in violations of the law, either the judge or the appealate court can throw out the jury decision and order a new trial.

3) No, you never said that the judge used oratory.  Neither did I.

4)  The jury typically has many choices that are not dictated by law.  Often there are other decisions that the jury could make.  That is why going to trial can be unpredictable.;
 
 
 

[Gregory]

Johann asked:

Could he have been at a place where 24 were assigned to jury duty?

I doubt that there is anyplace in the U.S. where this would be the norm.  But, anything is possible.

Here is what might happen:  In enpanneling a jury the judge selects a stated number who are immediately part of the jury.  In addition, the judge selects a number of additional people who become alternate members of the jury.  They attend the trial, listen to the arguements, view the evidence and are subject to the same rules as the members of the jury.  In the event that a member of the jury becomes unable to fulfill their duties, or is discharged for any reason, the judge selects one of the alternate members to fill the vacant place.

I can immagine that in the case of a complicated trial that was expected to last for months prior to going to the jury for a decision that the judge might select 12, or even more, alternate jurors.    But, this would not be typical.

[Bob Pickle]

Gregory, is it true that a jury can judge the law as well? That they can choose to acquit someone even if the law says otherwise?

I read somewhere recently about this.

It's an important question for Seventh-day Adventists given our views on future Sunday laws. Must a jury convict of breaking the Sabbath by working on Sunday if the law of the land forbids Sunday desecration. I think it was A. T. Jones who wrote that the jury can judge the law if they so choose.

But what I read recently said that folks who feel that way are often excluded from serving on a jury, and that they can be kicked off even after starting to serve.

[Gregory]

Bob, your question is complex and it has a couple of aspects:

1) As you likely know, there it a movement in the U.S. that says the power rests with the jury and it can ignore the instructions of the judge.  It advises people who serve on juries to ignore such if the person believes it to be wrong.

NOTE:  Either the judge or an appealate court can overturn the decision of the jury if that decision violates the law.  That it clear.

2) The law has a narrow focus, often times.  Often a jury will be required to make a decision, in order to convict, that is not governed by the law.  In such cases the decision of the jury will likely prevail.

E.g.  The law does not always determine whether or not an individual committed a crime.   A jury that decides that the individual was vacationing in Hawaii will not convict that person of personally robbing a bank in California at the time they decided that person was in Hawaii.

[Fran]

                

[Fran]

Bob,

IMO, you would do better to ask Gailon these questions.

Gregory, is it true that a jury can judge the law as well? That they can choose to acquit someone even if the law says otherwise?

I read somewhere recently about this.

It's an important question for Seventh-day Adventists given our views on future Sunday laws. Must a jury convict of breaking the Sabbath by working on Sunday if the law of the land forbids Sunday desecration. I think it was A. T. Jones who wrote that the jury can judge the law if they so choose.

But what I read recently said that folks who feel that way are often excluded from serving on a jury, and that they can be kicked off even after starting to serve.

[princessdi]

GJ, is a lawyer?  I didn't know that!   You learn something new everyday!