I remember a case where a robber held up a bar for $75 at 2 in the afternoon. Police got a call about a man behaving suspiciously (feeding pigeons in the park) at 4;30pm. They arrested him. He was an aerospace engineer on the way home from work where there were 20 witnesses that testified he was working with them at the time of the stick-up. He was six inches taller than the robber. The jury convicted him & the judge overturned it.
@@orppranator5230 Not the juries, the prosecutor. He is the one that did everything possible to convinct the defendant. The juries just made the mistake of believing the prosecutor and the witnesses he or she brought to the trial. There is a saying, a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwitch. That doesn´t mean he can convict a ham sandwitch, but when someone is on trial, people are already halfway to believe he or she is guilty. Otherwise, why would he or she be accused by the government of being a criminal?
I was on a jury in a civil case in federal court in 2003. The plaintiff was asking for $94,000, so it wasn’t a big case. I knew the plaintiff’s story and the damages were massively embellished. When we got into the jury room to deliberate, one guy piped-up and said “lets give the guy the $94,000 because it’s been a long five days and I want to get out of here.” This was an 8 person jury. (I guess that how they do low profile cases in Federal court) Six others agreed. I said “we need to go over each claim and cost individually.” The other 7 rolled their eyes. I said “we should stop whining and start working if you want to get out of here today, and, yes, i will make it a hung jury if you refuse.” In the end, the plaintiff got $71,000. I think the actual damages were more like $64,000, but that’s the best we could do. When we were dismissed we filed out single file past the plaintiff. He whispered “thank you” to all of us as we passed. I thought “don’t thank me, because of me you got $23,000 less!” I also thought “I’m glad this wasn’t a murder case because I could see the jury flipping a coin saying “heads he walks, tails we send him up the river.” It was a really sad experience.
And this is exactly lawyers try to avoid conflicts from ever going to a jury. You never know what will happen and most juries don't even know the trial they're working on.
I was on a jury where everyone was more worried about understanding how one of the charges could not stand without the others based on the judicial instructions. I pointed out that we’re should worry about if there was evidence made for a charge and let the judge worry about how they are compiled. If we decided the man wasn’t guilty of the important change but guilty of the other that’s how we should state it. That allowed us to move on and just look at the facts instead of worrying about the judges “rules”…. We also found the guy guilty on all charges so the first 15minutes of trying to jump though mental hoops didn’t matter.
First time I fully disagree with you. We've seen plenty of "convictions" getting life sentences being overturned because the accused were actually innocent! A judge smelling something fishy should have happened those times! It didn't! To avert the risk of an innocent person being imprisoned...I support this judge and the application of the law. An error is fine if made to defend freedom and true justice. Juries are people. People are flawed. More judges should do this. Maybe we wouldn't have the highest incarceration rate of the world!
@EdwardTons of examples where the case wasn't made or DNA proves innocence. Go research before you speak. You'll flaunt your ignorance less. Your argument also takes the standpoint of "Not proven but might still be guilty". You must be from outside the States. Here we believe in "Innocent until proven guilty". If a judge says the case wasn't proven I'm fine with them being a thirteenth juror. This was not on a technicality. Stop twisting what our judicial system was built on. You argument reeks of totalitarianism. Go study some more.
I was on a jury where a drunk cop started a fight with another drunk that had a girlfriend that looked damn near like his ex. The prosecution went with the cop even though he started the fight and I was under unbelievable pressure to vote to convict. I was physically threatened by other jurors so I can see jurors buckling under and the judge in this case stood up for a fair trial. We were a hung jury
Ok just to make sure I get it, the prosecution wanted to convict the man that the drunk cop assaulted aka the boyfriend of the woman who looked like the ex? If that is the case, I would be holding the not guilty flag in the courtroom... that's crazy.
I've heard of this before, a judge can't convict someone when jurors find not guilty or aquit someone, but, in the interest of Justice, can overturn a guilty or wrongful conviction, if it's clear the person is innocent, or if prosecutors pulled Brady violations and didn't give the defense all materials they have. It only works in one direction, to preserve our rights, so I think it's a great idea, and should happen more often.
Hard disagree. That's what appeals are for. If there was wrongdoing in the case then the judge should have straightened it out during the trial before it went to the jury. I can fully imagine judges abusing this to give preferential treatment to certain people that have been convicted, such as police officers or other government officials.
My primary concern with this is when a judge rules based on their political beliefs, and we begin to see members of one faction being granted new trials, or having their charges summarily dismissed, etc., while members of an opposing faction do not. This is the same issue with activist prosecutors, and it creates a severe problem for the legitimate administration of justice.
You stole the words right out of my mouth! I’m a paralegal in Alaska and I have had several cases overturned after a guilty verdict. This procedure is meant to protect liberty and regardless of what anyone says about life and liberty being listed next to property in the due process clause of the constitution life and liberty are clearly the more important rights. Civil courts deal with equitable relief for property violations while criminal courts deal with life and liberty. Damages to a person’s right to life and liberty are irreparable regardless of the equitable value placed upon them in a civil case. There is simply no reason not to provide a criminal defendant with the extra procedure of a new trial. Better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted. We should never lose sight of the sanctity of innocence even in these times of rampant crime.
In cases where mob mentality takes over this is a pressure relief valve for brave judges to preserve justice. Like Kim Potter for instance should have been thrown out but the judge punted and gave a really light sentence for what she was convicted of because she actually wasn't guilty of anything or with Rittenhouse for instance, it was a black and white self defense case and it's possible that with ideological jurors he might have been convicted despite being objectively and completely innocent, in that case at least the judge could step in and scold the jury for being ideological and not taking their duty seriously. It's better to have this procedure than not.
In Westmoreland county, Pennsylvania, the district attorney through slick maneuvers, and Covid kept a man in jail for two years at the cost of about $100,000 to the taxpayers. In this particular case there were nine counts of attempted homicide against three police officers 3 counts pertaining to each officer. A suspected jail house snitch is the only evidence that they had against this man. As it turns out, the snitch was trying to get a better deal for himself. The District Attorney’s Office believed the snitch, the cops, naturally believe the snitch because somebody shot at their officers in a unmarked van, and no one could identify this person. The defense attorney put on no witnesses, the defendant did not take the witness stand and or say a word. It took the jury three hours to find this man, not guilty of every one of the charges. I had written a letter to the new district attorney when she took office and mentioned that there were a few cases that the previous DA, who is my opinion was always looking to have somebody put to death. Of course, this was one of the cases, and as it turns out, they were so weak in their prosecution that it was actually laughable. If the man had a family, he lost it, if he had a job he lost it, if he had a home, he lost it and everything that was in it. Where does he go to get back his reputation and get this district attorney where he belongs,in jail.
Juries are not always rational. They tend to give too much credence to confessions, jailhouse snitches, junk science, etc. The “13th juror” laws are a necessary safeguard. The defendant in the Georgia is not skating, but getting a new trial.
If you're referring to the case I think you are, the new DA was still prosecuting the second defendant in that case, who already confessed, though I can't find any updates on that trial. It wasn't a jailhouse snitch though, it was the second defendant and his brother who both separately accused the acquitted of being the second shooter. Considering his prior gun charges, it's understandable why the former DA would prosecute, so your intense vitriol seems a bit extreme. And frankly, I don't know if the reputation of a 19 year old with prior gun charges suffers or improves when facing charges for shooting at cops. Reputation with whom?
@@selanryn5849 The only thing that I can tell you regarding the trial is what I read in the newspaper. Nowhere did I say these people were a pillar of the community. The defendant was denied bail, and I can understand that if you bring him to trial, but The district attorney, John Peck is a dirty DA and he is after people especially when there is law-enforcement involved. You might have read about the 26 page opinion that Judge Krieger, wrote castigating the District Attorney’s Office for not bringing people to trial in a timely manner. The next boot to drop on the district attorneys office and I’m talking about the previous administration and the current sheriffs department is the Ray Shetler case. I’m going to be interested in who is willing to say that 11 Pennsylvania state troopers and four sheriffs deputies couldn’t control this man and he assaulted a deputy sheriff and allegedly tried to take his gun. I want to see which one of the state police or sheriff deputies testify to that because they will be front and center from the tasing lawsuit that’s coming based on Shetler’s injuries. Once again, Einstein, I didn’t say these people were pillars of the community, but if you cannot treat them fairly according to law, then you are on the dirty side of the law. Just remember some of the pillars of the community and I’m talking about Pennsylvania state troopers in the past year did the following. Not going by date or incident, the following happened, child porn on his iPhone, and on a thumb drive in the patrol vehicle as well as on his home computer, another trooper assaulting family members and threatening other family members, Cambria county, off duty state trooper beat friend, so badly that he needed reconstructive surgery and threatened to burn down his house. A little further east, stealing evidence meaning narcotics out of the evidence room. Northeast Pennsylvania, trooper, caught drunk in car with open rum bottle after leaving the scene of an accident he caused. This is what you have sometimes prosecuting you along with a dirty DA. I don’t know any of these people, I know what I read, and not always from the Tribune review. The tribune democrat in Johnstown usually has a better story, and tells more of the truth, which means more of the facts. Just remember the dentist in Blairsville was killed by the state trooper who was banging his former wife. I could go on for a while, but I’ll stop right now.
@@selanryn5849 I forgot to mention, in some of my other comments that the person who fingered the defendant, was in jail at the time, and was trying to make a deal for himself. To me, that is a jailhouse snitch. You may call it something else and I can understand that. It would not be surprising to me if all of them end up the same temperature as the asphalt.
I was on a jury where found the guy not guilty and when our finding was read outloud in court the judge congratulated us and said that he would have not convicted the man if we had found him guilty the berated the prosecutor for wasting everybody's time for bringing this to trial then presenting no evidence besides his theory and conjecture
'Better a hundred guilty men go free than a single innocent is punished' is what I say. It is better to grant judges the ability to override the jury IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT (a judge may never declare a someone guilty when the jury finds them innocent) than to run the risk of an innocent person being punished for a crime they did not commit.
I was thinking the same thing. I wonder if the law differentiates. It's a big challenge if the jury exonerates somebody and the judge says "Back to square one with a new trial." That definitely goes against the ideal of double jeapordy.
Most of these laws I've seen allow for the Judge to go "no, he's clearly not guilty/purdon of proof was not met", but CAN'T do the reverse if the Jury votes to acquit. And that I'm fine with. I don't know if it's the case with the law here, but I hope it is.
George Carlin made the quote "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." I would say the same is true in large, medium, small groups, or even just 1 person.
I don't think I've ever disagreed with Steve this strongly. If a judge with a full legal education and experience says there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction, that needs be enough to keep someone out of jail. In a civil suit the standard isnt as high so the judge should have less room to step in.
This, and other cases, strongly show why the Jury needs at least one educated (in law and evidence) member in order to counter group think taking over without reason. Ideally, the whole jury should be selected from a very large pool of people who are at least semi-experts. Don't need a qualification or nothing, just demonstrated in some form an ability to reason and some knowledge of the veracity of the different types of evidence - could be an hour-long test taken at a local centre that qualifies you if you pass. Great film in 12 Angry Men that demonstrates how if one juror had been different the decision would have been over and done with in record time to the detriment of the defendant. Yet this one juror who was able to stimulate productive discussion about the evidence was vital to coming to a reasonable verdict.
I've been called for jury duty many times but only sat on one jury but that was enough to know I never want to place my freedom in the hands of a jury. Steve, before you criticize this case you should study the transcript and, if available, view any tape of the case. It could be that the defendant wasn't a likable person and a jury convicted on that alone.
There was a case in Illinois where a sex offense conviction was vacated because newly acquired DNA evidence showed it to be physically impossible for the accused to have been the offender. The SA in Cook County retried him anyway, arguing that some of his answers to police questioning revealed knowledge that no one but the offender could have possibly known. He was reconvicted over and against the DNA evidence. He spent a total of 17 years in state custody before our appellate court stepped in by vacating the conviction and barring retrial.
One possible (hypothetical) civil case I could think of is two people are involved in a car accident, one car has his sister in it as a witness. The other lone driver has front and back camera and they’re at an intersection with cameras that get subpoenaed. The jury finds the brother and sister completely credible (and maybe they truly believe they’re right), but all four available camera angles show that there’s no question they were at fault. All 4 angles show they rear ended the other driver. If the jury finds those two rear enders more credible then indisputable video evidence I don’t think a jury should be able to just overrule reality.
I believe that all too often in criminal cases (despite what may be taught in law school) great deference is often given to the prosecution, whose credibility is determined by how many convictions they have.
@@kenconnelly773 Whatever you were trying to prove with your example was disproved with poor execution. No one can figure out who is who in your hypothetical case. I have no idea who, "they" is that rear ended the driver. Wait, who was the, "driver"? Some of your comments are making sense, but you really need to clean that example up or write a new one. I suggest giving names/designations to the participants instead of, "sister, brother and sister, rear enders, and they" Dude, really take a look at it and think about if anyone else can tell what you are talking about.
Several decades ago, a jury in CA returned a guilty verdict against an acquaintance of mine. The judge threw out the verdict. I believe the language was that the judge found “As a matter of law, no reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented.”
It's called "Judgment notwithstanding the verdict". Judges can throw out or override a jury's conviction. They can't however, throw out a not guilty finding.
Actually I understand there are a couple of states which have it where the judge CAN do the same thing in reverse. Find someone guilty even if the jury said not. Never has it happened though. Probably because every judge knows, that SCOTUS would slap that down so hard it wouldn't even be funny.
@@jphogannet Not sure they can rule someone guilty as most likely will say new trial with new judge and jury. To rule someone guilty over a jury not guilty verdict will be hard to justify unless they evidence like person on camera doing said crime and his face is crystal clear.
I've veen watching a lot of Fulton County courts. It is wild and seems like the prosecutors are doing a lot of dubious things. They regularly charge people with misdemeanors and stall as long as possible by saying "we're referring this to be charged as a felony" and then letting it sit for MONTHS. Meanwhile defendants are in jail sitting in limbo. Then when the defense attorneys rightly bring up the fact that there is a person, who is presumed innocent, just sitting because his case can't go anywhere while waiting for this nebulous decision to be made about whether to indict as a felony, the prosecutors get super angry and act like doing their job os impossible. I've legit heard prosecutors say "If you want it done faster get a job at the prosecutors office." They have a man sitting in jail right now for over 600 days without an indictment as we speak.
@@mariatorres9789 In Georgia, right to speedy trial does not attach until the a formal accusation or uniform traffic citation is is filed or indictment is returned.
Then, if they get an indictment, and have no case, they dead docket it. A person can then walk around for years under felony indictment, and the court won't bring it to trial or dismiss it.
I have never even seen a court case, so my fear is probably irrational, but I have a big fear of juries. Part of the reason is because people are so incredibly easily manipulated into believing whatever satisfies their emotional needs--calling someone "John" rather than "Mr. Doe" could make the difference in the verdict, and that is terrifying to me. I think in some murder cases, all the prosecutor needs to do is impinge on the jury how horrible a crime is, and make them desperately want to convict. Once you have a strong, personal desire to punish someone, with little help from the prosecution, all you really need is a target to satisfy that craving. That's just one scenario--the commenters have already outlined many others including the jurors only caring to do whatever it takes to make it home in time for dinner.
mostly idiots end up as jurors. The reason being that one side always know they have a weak case and block prospective jurors that are intelligent and educated. Especially in the sciences or engineering where a high degree of logic is required.
Gonna guess that the prosecution used emotion instead of facts. Both sides do that; I used to work IT in a courthouse, and listening to trials (they were broadcast in the halls sometimes) was a "hobby". Make the jury cry, you win.
Agree, the problem is that a jury can free someone on emotion but convicting on emotion is Unconstitutional not that that means much today. Beyond a reasonable doubt has gone the way of the DODO bird!
Sometimes the jury gets it wrong. One time I was on a jury and the guy was clearly not guilty. We could not figure out why it was even brought to court, however there was a guy who originally came from San Francisco that was the only hold out, as he said he did not like cowboys, and the defendant he thought was a cowboy. Now if we were in San Francisco this clearly innocent man may have been convicted simply because they may think he was a republican cowboy. I could see the judge jump in at that point. I think it is a good thing.
"Now is it possible that all 12 of these jurors are wrong and the one judge is right?" Well, duh. Trial by jury is a vital part of our legal systems, but (as Steve well knows) there have been occasions when a unanimous verdict was wrong.
While not a US case , we had a case of some people of the BLM persuation toppling the statue of a local benefactor in Bristol, UK , who were plainly guilty of criminal damage but were found not guilty by a plainly 'woke' jury. If there was ever a case of a jury being told not to be so bloody stupid it was then..
@@jhoughjr1 And yet sometimes you get cases like that one dui case where the officer lied in the report and claimed both that there was no one to do the testing to check blood alcohol content and wrote an amount that the check supposedly found.
"You don't add up witnesses. They could have 10 witnesses for one side and you could have 1 good one to outweigh the 10 bad ones" 20 seconds later "Is it possible that all 12 of these jurors are wrong and the one judge is right?! And I do have a problem with that." Well you're a great lawyer.
My mother was once on a criminal jury. During deliberations the jury agreed that while the defendant did something, it wasn't proven that he'd did what he was charged with. So the jury found the defendant not guilty.
Blackstone's ratio, the concept that it's better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man suffer, should be the concept that all judges adhere to. How many innocent men have been freed thanks to DNA and other evidence found years, or even decades after conviction? When a Judge stands up and intercedes on behalf of a defendant, right or wrong, we should salute this judge. Again, right or wrong, I'd far rather a second trial than the possibility of an innocent man sitting in prison.
Hey Steve, I think you asked a good question. Namely, is it possible the 12 jurors would be wrong and the one judge right. The answer is yes. Now probably that isn't true, but it is still possible. Given that a person's life and welfare and otherwise rights are on the line I think we need to give all the reasons and evidence due regard. The first place I'd look is the reason's you said the judge provided as to why he decided the way he did. After examine those to see if they are valid and rational is to compare them to the reasons on the other side. The standard for conviction remains beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the verifiable evidence, weighting the jurors concerns for credibility (which can be badly bias), and other observable facts that bear on interpretation of evidence and credibility does it suggest reasonable doubt as to the guilt or innocence for this crime. He may be a horrible guy but if he didn't do this crime, he should not be convicted of it. The system should lean toward freeing an guilty person over convicting an innocent one. But the opposite is usually true.
Here's the problem, I think most people think - or tend to think - if a case is brought to trial by the state, then jurors are already going to be slightly in the prosecution's corner, or give them a leg up in the trial. Then if the state puts on even a decent case, with just enough reason to make the jury just an ounce suspicious, they'll convict. You also have to remember, juries are made up everyday citizens. I'm sorry, but I don't really trust even 2/3 of America's common citizenry to really sort out that kind of information, or to truly grasp it. I even don't trust most of them to vote - regardless of which side of the political spectrum they fall on.
I personally think it is a good thing that this happens rarely. Every year we are seeing 10 15 20 25 people having convictions overturned because the jury got it wrong. I personally think this adds another layer of protection to everyone.
I was on a Florida jury back in the 80's, and I later figured out the defendant was already in prison. We were shuffled in and out of the courtroom a lot so we wouldn't see him being brought in and out the side door, and there was an odd comment from the judge about this being a capital case, which confused me because it was about indecent exposure. The only way that makes sense is if it was a third strike. After a very weak prosecution and some pretty clearly coached witnesses (they all used the same words and the shrink that had talked to them had apparently coached them and wasn't very believable either) and a good job by the public defender, we decided we didn't believe their witnesses and returned not guilty. Well the judge came back to the jury room before we could leave, and he "mingled" with us and tried to figure out what had gone wrong and we laughed at the prosecution evidence. I didn't realize how unusual it was for a judge to mingle with the jury after a case. I guess this was a made-up third strike case, and at least with us they hit a bump in the road. I hope he had no power to overturn our verdict or force a retrial.
No, aquittals are permanent, you cannot retry aquittals, that's considered double jeopardy. The prosecution however may try to stick him with a different crime though.
@@taoliu3949 The double jepoardy rule has been changed in the UK in certain circumstances, and was used to convict two of the killers of Steven Lawrence
@@herseem Canada's double jeopardy is also weaker than the US 's. The prosecutor can appeal if they think a legal mistake happened. It came up when I was reviewing the case where a man had been charged with murdering his nine year old neighbor. The acquittal was overturned when it was ruled the judge gave incorrect instructions to the jury. The second trial convicted the guy but a few years later DNA evidence proved the defendant's innocence.
I completely think this is a valid option for a judge to have, as long as they are required to provide a detailed explanation to an appellate court. If this power is frequently abused, then that is something else entirely. Whether or not this power should be allowed in lesser cases is yet another issue.
So long as it remains as a way to prevent a travesty of justice instead of causing one, I agree. I would be concerned though in any case where the defendant is being jailed without bail during these multiple trials, (unless of course that’s the point..). I wonder if that doesn’t mean it should automatically go to higher court or a different judge? Idk. I would like to think that experienced judges could be trusted, but I would probably be wrong a larger percentage of the time... And anyone should fear a jury trial, since YOU don’t get to choose your jury of peers, so you might just get sheeple who care more about what’s happening on social media or where they are going for dinner than your future.
In the many jury selections I've been through, been many as I'm always on the list in a small town, the pattern is for the attorneys to pick the most brainless easy to manipulate people they can. If you know the difference between the criminal and civil standard, you're off the jury.
Idk how I sneaked into one, probably because either the defense or prosecutor thought I was prejudiced in a particular direction. But otherwise I have always been dismissed. And my fellow jurors were as you say, the most brainless people. They decided to convict the guy privately before having even heard any evidence or testimony, so they could go home and have dinner! I refused to go along, these were serious charges. They said a lot of things I found disturbing, and I am terrified of being judged by a jury of my "peers".
I've sat on several juries. Jurors bring in their own prejudices for or against, their own preconceptions, their own issues and time constraints. The most unusual deliberations were the ones that started out with discussions of the evidence and not about why we needed to wrap it up quickly and go home. Actual jurors frequently lack the attention span, integrity, and capacity for critical analysis necessary to do the job.
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -Benjamin Franklin
Never have a problem with a law that gives a defendant one more way to not be found guilty. The system is stacked so ridiculously against the defendant, from start to finish, that I'll always support the possibility of letting a guilty party go free because of a rule that in other cases prevents someone who isn't guilty from holding the entire bag. Criminal law should always be hard for the prosecution but that's not how it goes in the USA, generally, unfortunately. And the inability of juries to stick to the facts of law is a crushingly powerful strike against defendants who have to stand up in court against professional liars working for the state. (try this if you're ever under oath: when the prosecutor inevitably says something like "and remember that you are under oath" reply "I am well aware that I am under oath and must speak truthfully, just as I am aware that you are not")
That isn't always true. There are classical examples where the law is stacked against the plaintiff and the defendant has the benefit of "innocent until proven guilty" twisted to unfairly mean "the plaintiff is a dirty liar until proven truthful".
I actually was on a jury where the prosecution really failed. The case was against a man who's ex-wife accused him of smashing the windshield of her car. The man had been seen in the neighborhood, but wasn't seen doing the deed. In fact the prosecution didn't even provide evidence that any windshield had been broken much less that the defendant did the deed. It took us longer to select a foreman than it took us to reach a verdict.
I have never sat on a jury, but I remember my mom (long deceased) who told of a jury she was on where one of the jurors lied by stating he had no relation to one of the adversaries. In the jury room, a totally different story. It was for damages and did not have to be unanimous, so his favortism failed to help the person he knew. I was a state compliance officer for an agency for 27 + years, and I have interviewed at least a couple thousand workers. I don't do blind faith.
@Unbroken Around here, the cops and public are always frustrated the judges won't let a good conviction happen, or sentence them to next to nothing. I guess it depends where you are.
I actually WANT to do jury duty. But sadly my work doesn't allow me that flexibility. Nothing like actually being on a jury to get a feel for what being in court actually is like. Plus, i trust my judgement more than i trust some random person.
I actually think this is good. The new trial should have a new jury and a new judge, but otherwise I like this rule. Especially if it's a case that requires beyond a reasonable doubt, a judge disagreeing with the jury should be grounds to take an even closer look at the case. I'm honestly not a big fan of jury trials in general, but this balances things out a bit.
I was on a jury trial where we found the 2 being charged not guilty. I didn’t stay but I’ve ran into one of the prosecutors twice , 10 years apart. He was brought in to assist a few days prior. He said we made the correct decision. He questioned if the original prosecuting attorney had the right people.
I was on a jury once where halfway through the case, the judge threw the case out, then met with the jury to apologize. he said “Believe me, they’re not all this bad.”
We had a family friend that was a judge. He told us that he has the right to do this overturn a conviction from a jury if he felt the defendant was not guilty. He also said that he can't overturn a jury if they rule him not guilty when he thought that he was guilty. It's never happened but he has the power. For some reason I remember this conversation even though it happened when I was in high school over 30 years ago.
So, you believe that DA will not bring charges against an innocent person. I am glad the judge overturned the jury. A smart DA can prosecute any innocent person. Especially if the person has to rely on public defender.
Actually, "jury nullification" is the instance of a jury returning a not guilty verdict despite the overwhelming concrete evidence presented to the jury that would suggest otherwise. The judge cannot overturn the not guilty verdict.
A jury can unanimously believe the defendant is guilty, but if "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not met, they must return with "Not Quilty." This places the highest requirement for the prosecutors to prove the case "beyond a reasonable doubt." I believe the 13th juror concept, when used very carefully, is very important in our justice system.
The main reason I would imagine a judge overturning a guilty verdict in criminal court would hinge around their opinion that the defense attorney failed miserable in their representation of the defended. Not an uncommon occurrence with public defenders that are grossly overloaded with cases.
A co-worker who I greatly respect and think highly of, was on the jury of a manslaughter case. She commented only that she was thoroughly disgusted by some of the other jurors.
I am 46 years old right now and my dad always said that his biggest fear in life was that he would be charged and convicted for a crime he didn't commit and be thrown in prison
Judges presumably have vast experience dealing with evidence, witness testimony and credibility, and the law, much more than Joe Public in the jury box. I like the idea of a judge being able to overturn a guilty verdict with a new trial. Something the judge saw with his expert eyes said to him that something wasn't right with this verdict. How many times have we heard of some innocent person going to prison for years because they were wrongly convicted? I'd rather have a fail-safe in place to possibly prevent this than allowing such a travesty of justice to occur to an innocent.
Steve, I disagree with your scepticism over this rule. From the beginning of our country we were built on the idea that it is better to let 100 guilty persons go free than to convict a single innocent person. Today, it is actually very difficult to go free once charged even if you are innocent. 13th juror law seems to me to be a small tool in the tool belt of checks to make sure innocent people aren't wrongly convicted. I don't know how this is being used, but in my mind it's most appropriate for criminal cases where the judge thinks an innocent person is getting convicted. Never when the judge thinks the person is guilty and going free. Civil cases I'm not sure how practical it is to use.
I'm reminded of the State (of Wisconsin) v. Rittenhouse trial, in which the prosecution misbehaved so egregiously that the defense had many motions before the court for a mistrial with prejudice, meaning he couldn't be re-tried, but the judge withheld ruling on those motions and let the evidence (some of which was wrongly admitted) go to the jury. The jury returned findings of Not Guilty on every count, making all the defense motions moot. This got the judge off the hook for issuing a finding of prosecutorial misconduct, and probably saved that prosecutor's license to practice law. Since the issue never got ruled on, there was never a complaint sent to the bar association.
How did the prosecution misbehave? That case was a shit show thanks in no small part to the judge himself and had a visible bias in favor of Rittenhouse.
@@ArtBear88 The prosecution used different evidence than was provided to the defense, to wit the "drone video" which was given in a very low resolution to the defense, but played at high resolution in court; and the prosecutor **MORE THAN ONE TIME and in front of the jury** called into question Rittenhouse's assertion of his right to remain silent before he took the witness stand. There were other events I don't recall off the top of my head that also resulted in a defense motion for mistrial with prejudice that the judge took under advisement, but did not rule on. I could review video and give an answer that would probably exceed the maximum length of a YT comment.
@@ArtBear88 The Prosecution violated Kyles 5th and 6th amendment rights by breaking the Rules of Evidence and using his refusal to testify to the police against him. There is clear Supreme Court rulings that state that it is unconstitutional to do this. The Judge didn't want political backlash from the heavily liberal government and allowed the prosecution to run rampant in the court.
Steve, here is an idea for a video. How many times has SCOTUS overturned a previous ruling of its own? Now THAT would make a great book, don't you think?
I'm fine with this in criminal cases as jury's are often bad at their job. I've read and heard jurors say things like "we were waiting for the defendant to prove his innocence, and he didn't, so we had to vote guilty" and "why would they have charged [the defendant] id he wasn't guilty."
If the judge found that the State did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, shouldn't the judge have ordered a directed verdict of not guilty? Why a motion for a new trial?
Rittennhouse. Judge was convinced that the prosecution had violated the rules /constitutional rights of Rittennhouse. Namely the fifth amendment. Little Binger told the jury they should draw negative inferences from the defendant pleading the fifth. Judge said let's leave it to the jury and see what they do with the case. Now I've heard state to state juries don't have to be unanimous to convict.
Sat on a high value civil trial. All 6 women jurors were completely in favor of the good looking smooth talking plaintiff attorney. I forced them to consider the actual evidence during deliberation. We decided in favor of the plaintiff based upon evidence not attorney charisma.
I think the biggest reason judges should be allowed to do this is jurors' emotions can get so inflamed they don't really care about things like facts or the law. There's a classic Law and Order episode where we see this. A gun manufacturer was put on trial after a shooting because the prosecution argued they knew how their product would be used. The jury was so emotional about shootings they voted guilty. The judge threw it out, saying the prosecution's case failed to meet the legal requirements. That said, of course any time you give someone power there's the risk of it being misused/abused so... yeah.
In reference to credibility of witnesses I think it is possible that the judge has far more experience than the jurors. I think it is also possible the jurors agreed after three hours because they wanted to go home.
I was on a jury and I was the only one that didn't believe he was guilty and we could not leave the room without a unanimous vote we ended up finding bim not guilty.
Being called to jury duty myself I found it very interesting that on the morning I along with lots of other people showed up to the courtroom waiting. While we waited a lawyer walked to one of the desk up front and called a persons name. That lawyer then introduced himself to the (I assume the accused and was correct) as his public defender. He told the gentleman that he would be representing him in court today. I was shocked that the accused just met his attorney that very morning of his trial. I had made a comment in this very quiet courtroom (I thought I had spoken softer than I had) how is this man supposed to get a fair trial if he just met his appointed attorney on the day of his trial. That comment got a laugh and a couple people talking. There was a courtroom staff member who then walked out of the courtroom and returned about ten minutes later. Five minutes later the judge walked in and excused every potential juror from the court. We were sent home. In fairness I have no idea as to what case any of us would be on as a juror. I was asked by that man’s attorney to speak with him. He said thank you for the comment. I asked why. He stated he just got the case over the weekend and had no idea what he was going to do as he was told not to argue in court that he had not had a chance to meet with his client until that morning. I asked the lawyer how would you be able to represent this man if you had no other contact until the day of the case. He said exactly. I do not know if all the jurors were pulled together in one courtroom for many or one case(s). The lawyer stated that my comment alone would have bearing on a case as all the potential jurors just heard or may have heard that the case couldn’t have been presented fairly when you have little to no knowledge of the case or had any time to create a defense. The morning of is not that time. To me this meant a sloppy case could have possibly put an innocent man behind bars.
Steve, I’m sure you know that juries can be just plain stupid and render a verdict based on emotion and not fact. Look at the ridiculous RoundUp cases that Bauer has lost because the juries were scientifically illiterate. Sometimes it takes a person with integrity and intelligence to do the Right Thing.
Perhaps, Steve, it wasn't a case of credibility but a case where the prosecution successfully but in error suppressed exculpatory evidence and the defense failed to bring a successful challenge to the suppression (ineffective assistance of counsel). If this was the case then the general grounds for granting a new trial should by rights, as is the case here, be affirmed. In this case this is exactly what the Georgia Supreme Court did.
We can debate over what powers we should give judges, and the merits of trial by jury. However, in such a serious case I am in favor of anything that grants a more fair trial. If it holds up the trial courts and prevents the jury from convicting every now and then, so be it.
Another not-well-known case involved a wealthy, well-connected businessman under investigation in Texas. His chief accountant was a witness against him, and turned up dead. Five shots to the chest with a hunting rifle which was initially ruled suicide - despite no powder burns and the trigger unreachable by the deceased with the rifles barrel against his chest. A Texas Ranger examined the shell casings and found finger prints of a known criminal actor, who was then brought to trial for first degree murder. The man was convicted of 1st degree murder by the jury. The judge sentenced the killer to "time served". The well connected businessman involved was also, then, Governor of Texas, Lyndon Johnson, who later served as vice President to John Kennedy (assassinated by high powered rifle) then President of the USA. During his tenure, JFK's brother Bobby Kennedy was assassinated, as well as Civil Rights Leader, Martin Luther King. Sometimes, the judge is the cats paw of other people, and such interference should also be investigated. BTW, that "time served" sentance gave rise to the Phrase, "Texas Justice" meaning a corrupt political justice system.
There can be strong jurors that sway the opinions of, let's say, "weaker" jurors. Not everybody is able to process things as well as others. In a complicated case there is also a lot to remember about the testimony. The jurors don't take notes and what people recall in the jury room can differ sometimes. And who is a faultless judge of character? If credibility was easy to distinguish scammers and con-men would be out of business. But everybody does want to get done and go home. So there can be conflicting understandings and motivations on juries that result in occasional sub-optimal results. The judge does see many trials and witnesses and is rightly granted some discretion in over ruling what he sees as faulty justice.
That’s really good because if the guy was really not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then there should have been no way that they found him guilty if they were doing their job as a jury
Guess time. Hundo, unfolded, between the first and second columns of law books, on the left side of the main cabinet, sandwiched between the first and second rows of the law books. 58.
I was just on a jury a few weeks ago. Thankfully we had a pretty professional group of folks who all took notes and we're willing to discuss everything in a civil manner. I consider myself lucky.
In trial advocacy in 2L, we had a jury room with cameras recording the deliberations. It's not a real trial, so no harm no foul, and the participants were told ahead of time that they'd be recorded. Yeah. You kinda really don't want to see that. My co-counsel was a very shapely and attractive woman, and one of the jurors couldn't stop mentioning it. We're pretty sure he voted in our favor (against finding the defendant liable for damages) because of how hot my co-counsel was. They also repeated the "tag lines" that the attorneys used -- along the lines of "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit", and it didn't really matter how silly or inept the taglines were. Repetition, primacy and recency are every bit as important as trial-ad professors say they are. Some rocks should just not be looked under.
You know, there have been something like 200 people on death row that were exonerated. Countless others have spent decades in prison only to be exonerated and released. Jurors sometimes vote on emotion and not facts, so a judge being able to do this makes sense. You are talking about someone's liberty here.
The danger from miscarriage of justice is just so great that you really need to convince that "13th juror", a judge who has been around the block a few times and won't be bamboozled by bullshit the prosecutor may get away with.
Many years ago, I was consulted as an expert witness on a case in West Palm Beach, Florida by the public defender. As it happened, no court testimony was required from me and the defendant was acquitted. He had been charged with stealing a piece of software. The attorney told me afterwards that what had happened was that in what was apparently a parallel civil case on the same subject matter, the court found that the defendant had, in fact, written that software and the plaintiff had failed to do the necessary paperwork to transfer title to himself. The criminal court duly took judicial notice of this finding (which implied that the defendant had never stolen anything.) In this case, however, the judge in the criminal matter sent the matter to the jury anyway rather than grant summary judgement. According to the PD, the judge somewhat regretted doing so in hindsight, and thus wasting the jury's time. However, the jury foreman was later seen chewing out the prosecutor for doing exactly that.
@@dvrdown1981 I ha e no problem saying that the “victim”… we have plenty of people that believe they are re the victim when really they are the guilty party.
This happens. Especially when a judge determines the jury are turnip IQ level and the evidence for conviction did not meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold. It is a judges duty to do this
I remember a case where a robber held up a bar for $75 at 2 in the afternoon. Police got a call about a man behaving suspiciously (feeding pigeons in the park) at 4;30pm. They arrested him. He was an aerospace engineer on the way home from work where there were 20 witnesses that testified he was working with them at the time of the stick-up. He was six inches taller than the robber. The jury convicted him & the judge overturned it.
Wow.
Situations like that tempt me to say that juries should be prosecutable.
@@orppranator5230 Not the juries, the prosecutor.
He is the one that did everything possible to convinct the defendant.
The juries just made the mistake of believing the prosecutor and the witnesses he or she brought to the trial.
There is a saying, a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwitch.
That doesn´t mean he can convict a ham sandwitch, but when someone is on trial, people are already halfway to believe he or she is guilty.
Otherwise, why would he or she be accused by the government of being a criminal?
Yep... a jury can be preyed upon over their own biases.
@@ScamallDorcha but if the evidence is clear and they're obviously being biased then sure
I was on a jury in a civil case in federal court in 2003. The plaintiff was asking for $94,000, so it wasn’t a big case. I knew the plaintiff’s story and the damages were massively embellished.
When we got into the jury room to deliberate, one guy piped-up and said “lets give the guy the $94,000 because it’s been a long five days and I want to get out of here.” This was an 8 person jury. (I guess that how they do low profile cases in Federal court) Six others agreed. I said “we need to go over each claim and cost individually.” The other 7 rolled their eyes. I said “we should stop whining and start working if you want to get out of here today, and, yes, i will make it a hung jury if you refuse.”
In the end, the plaintiff got $71,000. I think the actual damages were more like $64,000, but that’s the best we could do.
When we were dismissed we filed out single file past the plaintiff. He whispered “thank you” to all of us as we passed. I thought “don’t thank me, because of me you got $23,000 less!” I also thought “I’m glad this wasn’t a murder case because I could see the jury flipping a coin saying “heads he walks, tails we send him up the river.”
It was a really sad experience.
Ever watch 12 Angry Men? It’s one of my favorite movies.
And this is exactly lawyers try to avoid conflicts from ever going to a jury. You never know what will happen and most juries don't even know the trial they're working on.
@@orppranator5230 unfortunately that was a mistrial due to bad conduct of the jury.
@@ekfliu Asking for the knife again, well as shunning the angry guy? Fair enough.
But hey, it’s a movie, so of course it’s a bit dramatized.
I was on a jury where everyone was more worried about understanding how one of the charges could not stand without the others based on the judicial instructions. I pointed out that we’re should worry about if there was evidence made for a charge and let the judge worry about how they are compiled. If we decided the man wasn’t guilty of the important change but guilty of the other that’s how we should state it. That allowed us to move on and just look at the facts instead of worrying about the judges “rules”…. We also found the guy guilty on all charges so the first 15minutes of trying to jump though mental hoops didn’t matter.
Honestly, more judges should do this. And it can only go one way. This is the most successful way to check the power of shady prosecutors..
First time I fully disagree with you. We've seen plenty of "convictions" getting life sentences being overturned because the accused were actually innocent! A judge smelling something fishy should have happened those times! It didn't! To avert the risk of an innocent person being imprisoned...I support this judge and the application of the law. An error is fine if made to defend freedom and true justice. Juries are people. People are flawed. More judges should do this. Maybe we wouldn't have the highest incarceration rate of the world!
Where would our prison industry be if judges erred on the side of judicial caution and freedom? Think of the poor prison guard!
Hell he covers those cases all the time on this channel
We have tons of knuckleheads in America, spoiled knuckleheads
Looney tunes.
@EdwardTons of examples where the case wasn't made or DNA proves innocence. Go research before you speak. You'll flaunt your ignorance less. Your argument also takes the standpoint of "Not proven but might still be guilty". You must be from outside the States. Here we believe in "Innocent until proven guilty". If a judge says the case wasn't proven I'm fine with them being a thirteenth juror. This was not on a technicality. Stop twisting what our judicial system was built on. You argument reeks of totalitarianism. Go study some more.
I was on a jury where a drunk cop started a fight with another drunk that had a girlfriend that looked damn near like his ex. The prosecution went with the cop even though he started the fight and I was under unbelievable pressure to vote to convict. I was physically threatened by other jurors so I can see jurors buckling under and the judge in this case stood up for a fair trial. We were a hung jury
Ok just to make sure I get it, the prosecution wanted to convict the man that the drunk cop assaulted aka the boyfriend of the woman who looked like the ex? If that is the case, I would be holding the not guilty flag in the courtroom... that's crazy.
You reported the people who threatened you, and they were arrested for jury tampering and obstruction of justice, right?
@@michaelcastro5339 I don't believe you were under unbelievable pressure. By definition, if it was unbelievable, I couldn't believe it.
@@markstuber4731 not sure what you're talking about?
@@michaelcastro5339 David McCleary's post . You weren't supposed to be tagged.
I've heard of this before, a judge can't convict someone when jurors find not guilty or aquit someone, but, in the interest of Justice, can overturn a guilty or wrongful conviction, if it's clear the person is innocent, or if prosecutors pulled Brady violations and didn't give the defense all materials they have. It only works in one direction, to preserve our rights, so I think it's a great idea, and should happen more often.
Hard disagree. That's what appeals are for. If there was wrongdoing in the case then the judge should have straightened it out during the trial before it went to the jury. I can fully imagine judges abusing this to give preferential treatment to certain people that have been convicted, such as police officers or other government officials.
My primary concern with this is when a judge rules based on their political beliefs, and we begin to see members of one faction being granted new trials, or having their charges summarily dismissed, etc., while members of an opposing faction do not. This is the same issue with activist prosecutors, and it creates a severe problem for the legitimate administration of justice.
You stole the words right out of my mouth! I’m a paralegal in Alaska and I have had several cases overturned after a guilty verdict. This procedure is meant to protect liberty and regardless of what anyone says about life and liberty being listed next to property in the due process clause of the constitution life and liberty are clearly the more important rights. Civil courts deal with equitable relief for property violations while criminal courts deal with life and liberty. Damages to a person’s right to life and liberty are irreparable regardless of the equitable value placed upon them in a civil case. There is simply no reason not to provide a criminal defendant with the extra procedure of a new trial. Better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted. We should never lose sight of the sanctity of innocence even in these times of rampant crime.
I agree. We (as a society) have decided a long time ago that it's better to let a guilty person go free than to falsely imprison an innocent.
In cases where mob mentality takes over this is a pressure relief valve for brave judges to preserve justice. Like Kim Potter for instance should have been thrown out but the judge punted and gave a really light sentence for what she was convicted of because she actually wasn't guilty of anything or with Rittenhouse for instance, it was a black and white self defense case and it's possible that with ideological jurors he might have been convicted despite being objectively and completely innocent, in that case at least the judge could step in and scold the jury for being ideological and not taking their duty seriously. It's better to have this procedure than not.
In Westmoreland county, Pennsylvania, the district attorney through slick maneuvers, and Covid kept a man in jail for two years at the cost of about $100,000 to the taxpayers. In this particular case there were nine counts of attempted homicide against three police officers 3 counts pertaining to each officer. A suspected jail house snitch is the only evidence that they had against this man. As it turns out, the snitch was trying to get a better deal for himself. The District Attorney’s Office believed the snitch, the cops, naturally believe the snitch because somebody shot at their officers in a unmarked van, and no one could identify this person. The defense attorney put on no witnesses, the defendant did not take the witness stand and or say a word. It took the jury three hours to find this man, not guilty of every one of the charges. I had written a letter to the new district attorney when she took office and mentioned that there were a few cases that the previous DA, who is my opinion was always looking to have somebody put to death. Of course, this was one of the cases, and as it turns out, they were so weak in their prosecution that it was actually laughable. If the man had a family, he lost it, if he had a job he lost it, if he had a home, he lost it and everything that was in it. Where does he go to get back his reputation and get this district attorney where he belongs,in jail.
Jail? You mean under the jail.
Juries are not always rational. They tend to give too much credence to confessions, jailhouse snitches, junk science, etc.
The “13th juror” laws are a necessary safeguard.
The defendant in the Georgia is not skating, but getting a new trial.
If you're referring to the case I think you are, the new DA was still prosecuting the second defendant in that case, who already confessed, though I can't find any updates on that trial. It wasn't a jailhouse snitch though, it was the second defendant and his brother who both separately accused the acquitted of being the second shooter. Considering his prior gun charges, it's understandable why the former DA would prosecute, so your intense vitriol seems a bit extreme. And frankly, I don't know if the reputation of a 19 year old with prior gun charges suffers or improves when facing charges for shooting at cops. Reputation with whom?
@@selanryn5849
The only thing that I can tell you regarding the trial is what I read in the newspaper. Nowhere did I say these people were a pillar of the community. The defendant was denied bail, and I can understand that if you bring him to trial, but The district attorney, John Peck is a dirty DA and he is after people especially when there is law-enforcement involved. You might have read about the 26 page opinion that Judge Krieger, wrote castigating the District Attorney’s Office for not bringing people to trial in a timely manner. The next boot to drop on the district attorneys office and I’m talking about the previous administration and the current sheriffs department is the Ray Shetler case. I’m going to be interested in who is willing to say that 11 Pennsylvania state troopers and four sheriffs deputies couldn’t control this man and he assaulted a deputy sheriff and allegedly tried to take his gun. I want to see which one of the state police or sheriff deputies testify to that because they will be front and center from the tasing lawsuit that’s coming based on Shetler’s injuries. Once again, Einstein, I didn’t say these people were pillars of the community, but if you cannot treat them fairly according to law, then you are on the dirty side of the law. Just remember some of the pillars of the community and I’m talking about Pennsylvania state troopers in the past year did the following. Not going by date or incident, the following happened, child porn on his iPhone, and on a thumb drive in the patrol vehicle as well as on his home computer, another trooper assaulting family members and threatening other family members, Cambria county, off duty state trooper beat friend, so badly that he needed reconstructive surgery and threatened to burn down his house. A little further east, stealing evidence meaning narcotics out of the evidence room. Northeast Pennsylvania, trooper, caught drunk in car with open rum bottle after leaving the scene of an accident he caused. This is what you have sometimes prosecuting you along with a dirty DA. I don’t know any of these people, I know what I read, and not always from the Tribune review. The tribune democrat in Johnstown usually has a better story, and tells more of the truth, which means more of the facts. Just remember the dentist in Blairsville was killed by the state trooper who was banging his former wife. I could go on for a while, but I’ll stop right now.
@@selanryn5849
I forgot to mention, in some of my other comments that the person who fingered the defendant, was in jail at the time, and was trying to make a deal for himself. To me, that is a jailhouse snitch. You may call it something else and I can understand that. It would not be surprising to me if all of them end up the same temperature as the asphalt.
I was on a jury where found the guy not guilty and when our finding was read outloud in court the judge congratulated us and said that he would have not convicted the man if we had found him guilty the berated the prosecutor for wasting everybody's time for bringing this to trial then presenting no evidence besides his theory and conjecture
Kyle Rittenhouse trial?
@@NinjaMinkzx No. Go away, troll.
@@davidhoward4715 ???
@@NinjaMinkzx That's different since that trial has lots of evidence the judge was pampering Rittenhouse like a baby throughout the trial.
@@sleepyearth Lots of evidence of an incompetent prosecutor that's for sure.
'Better a hundred guilty men go free than a single innocent is punished' is what I say. It is better to grant judges the ability to override the jury IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT (a judge may never declare a someone guilty when the jury finds them innocent) than to run the risk of an innocent person being punished for a crime they did not commit.
100% Agreed, especially when it’s a murder case when the punishment is life in prison or death penalty.
Not anymore. 95% of judges are now politicians or activists. Nowadays 100 guilty men do go free, but 10 innocent men get jailed.
I was thinking the same thing. I wonder if the law differentiates. It's a big challenge if the jury exonerates somebody and the judge says "Back to square one with a new trial." That definitely goes against the ideal of double jeapordy.
Most of these laws I've seen allow for the Judge to go "no, he's clearly not guilty/purdon of proof was not met", but CAN'T do the reverse if the Jury votes to acquit. And that I'm fine with. I don't know if it's the case with the law here, but I hope it is.
100% correct.
Too many people in jail from flimsy evidence.
NEVER underestimate the stupidity of people on a jury.
the coof showed us how many stupid people exist.
O.J agrees..
or their EVIL corrupt satanic hearts
George Carlin made the quote "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." I would say the same is true in large, medium, small groups, or even just 1 person.
@@KA-om9oz And rhyming Johnny Cochran
I don't think I've ever disagreed with Steve this strongly. If a judge with a full legal education and experience says there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction, that needs be enough to keep someone out of jail. In a civil suit the standard isnt as high so the judge should have less room to step in.
This, and other cases, strongly show why the Jury needs at least one educated (in law and evidence) member in order to counter group think taking over without reason. Ideally, the whole jury should be selected from a very large pool of people who are at least semi-experts. Don't need a qualification or nothing, just demonstrated in some form an ability to reason and some knowledge of the veracity of the different types of evidence - could be an hour-long test taken at a local centre that qualifies you if you pass.
Great film in 12 Angry Men that demonstrates how if one juror had been different the decision would have been over and done with in record time to the detriment of the defendant. Yet this one juror who was able to stimulate productive discussion about the evidence was vital to coming to a reasonable verdict.
I agree, to me this what ‘judge’ means.
I've been called for jury duty many times but only sat on one jury but that was enough to know I never want to place my freedom in the hands of a jury. Steve, before you criticize this case you should study the transcript and, if available, view any tape of the case. It could be that the defendant wasn't a likable person and a jury convicted on that alone.
There was a case in Illinois where a sex offense conviction was vacated because newly acquired DNA evidence showed it to be physically impossible for the accused to have been the offender. The SA in Cook County retried him anyway, arguing that some of his answers to police questioning revealed knowledge that no one but the offender could have possibly known. He was reconvicted over and against the DNA evidence. He spent a total of 17 years in state custody before our appellate court stepped in by vacating the conviction and barring retrial.
One possible (hypothetical) civil case I could think of is two people are involved in a car accident, one car has his sister in it as a witness. The other lone driver has front and back camera and they’re at an intersection with cameras that get subpoenaed. The jury finds the brother and sister completely credible (and maybe they truly believe they’re right), but all four available camera angles show that there’s no question they were at fault. All 4 angles show they rear ended the other driver. If the jury finds those two rear enders more credible then indisputable video evidence I don’t think a jury should be able to just overrule reality.
I believe that all too often in criminal cases (despite what may be taught in law school) great deference is often given to the prosecution, whose credibility is determined by how many convictions they have.
Liberal
@@kenconnelly773 Whatever you were trying to prove with your example was disproved with poor execution. No one can figure out who is who in your hypothetical case. I have no idea who, "they" is that rear ended the driver. Wait, who was the, "driver"?
Some of your comments are making sense, but you really need to clean that example up or write a new one. I suggest giving names/designations to the participants instead of, "sister, brother and sister, rear enders, and they"
Dude, really take a look at it and think about if anyone else can tell what you are talking about.
Kudos to the judge for being fair and impartial.
Several decades ago, a jury in CA returned a guilty verdict against an acquaintance of mine. The judge threw out the verdict. I believe the language was that the judge found “As a matter of law, no reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented.”
Judges who actually know the law are becoming a rarity, your friend was lucky, if this happens today, especially in CA, things might be different
It is California, you can't get convicted in that state.
@@KA-om9oz Factually untrue. Source: was just on a CA jury that convicted the criminal defendant.
@@KA-om9oz So you want an innocent person to go to prison. You are obviously a Trump cultist.
@@KA-om9oz And yet they have the 8th highest conviction rate
After listening to this story ... I think the "13TH Juror Law" is a good law!
It's called "Judgment notwithstanding the verdict". Judges can throw out or override a jury's conviction. They can't however, throw out a not guilty finding.
I swore I had heard of this before. I couldn't remember any cases. Obviously not very common.
It is a pretty good safety mechanism in my opinion. Sometimes juries get it wrong. I have to disagree with Steve on this one.
Actually I understand there are a couple of states which have it where the judge CAN do the same thing in reverse. Find someone guilty even if the jury said not. Never has it happened though. Probably because every judge knows, that SCOTUS would slap that down so hard it wouldn't even be funny.
@@jphogannet
I’m not sure the current SCOTUS would slap it down.
@@jphogannet Not sure they can rule someone guilty as most likely will say new trial with new judge and jury. To rule someone guilty over a jury not guilty verdict will be hard to justify unless they evidence like person on camera doing said crime and his face is crystal clear.
Ben is hanging out horizontally between the left side MCL books just above the WLLZ bumper sticker.
Damn! Had to adjust my eyes even after you saying where it is. Good 👁 dude! Steve hid it really well this time. I couldn't find it.
I've veen watching a lot of Fulton County courts. It is wild and seems like the prosecutors are doing a lot of dubious things.
They regularly charge people with misdemeanors and stall as long as possible by saying "we're referring this to be charged as a felony" and then letting it sit for MONTHS. Meanwhile defendants are in jail sitting in limbo. Then when the defense attorneys rightly bring up the fact that there is a person, who is presumed innocent, just sitting because his case can't go anywhere while waiting for this nebulous decision to be made about whether to indict as a felony, the prosecutors get super angry and act like doing their job os impossible.
I've legit heard prosecutors say "If you want it done faster get a job at the prosecutors office."
They have a man sitting in jail right now for over 600 days without an indictment as we speak.
He's allowed to demand a swift trial. There's no need for him to still be sitting there. They have to try him, or release him, if he demands it.
That's outrageous and everyone involved needs to be disbarred and criminally prosecuted.
@@mariatorres9789 In Georgia, right to speedy trial does not attach until the a formal accusation or uniform traffic citation is is filed or indictment is returned.
Then, if they get an indictment, and have no case, they dead docket it. A person can then walk around for years under felony indictment, and the court won't bring it to trial or dismiss it.
@@wolf2965 Then they can only be held 72 hours. Something else must be going on.
I have never even seen a court case, so my fear is probably irrational, but I have a big fear of juries. Part of the reason is because people are so incredibly easily manipulated into believing whatever satisfies their emotional needs--calling someone "John" rather than "Mr. Doe" could make the difference in the verdict, and that is terrifying to me. I think in some murder cases, all the prosecutor needs to do is impinge on the jury how horrible a crime is, and make them desperately want to convict. Once you have a strong, personal desire to punish someone, with little help from the prosecution, all you really need is a target to satisfy that craving. That's just one scenario--the commenters have already outlined many others including the jurors only caring to do whatever it takes to make it home in time for dinner.
mostly idiots end up as jurors. The reason being that one side always know they have a weak case and block prospective jurors that are intelligent and educated. Especially in the sciences or engineering where a high degree of logic is required.
Gonna guess that the prosecution used emotion instead of facts. Both sides do that; I used to work IT in a courthouse, and listening to trials (they were broadcast in the halls sometimes) was a "hobby". Make the jury cry, you win.
That's because most jury's compose of elderly women.
Emotions mean more to them then facts.
Agree, the problem is that a jury can free someone on emotion but convicting on emotion is Unconstitutional not that that means much today. Beyond a reasonable doubt has gone the way of the DODO bird!
@@ryanjones7681 Oh please. Give a little credit to the ignorance of young women, they value emotion too much as well and they aren’t even old yet!
@@ryanjones7681 You do realize that such claims, even when facetious, are an emotional plea themselves?
@@orppranator5230 yes, but they don't go to jurry duty.
Great! It is nice to see a Judge take action when there appears to be prosecutorial misconduct or other related issue.
And you got that where? I'm not against the idea of the 13th juror, but you are making a huge jump considering the facts presented here.
Sometimes the jury gets it wrong. One time I was on a jury and the guy was clearly not guilty. We could not figure out why it was even brought to court, however there was a guy who originally came from San Francisco that was the only hold out, as he said he did not like cowboys, and the defendant he thought was a cowboy. Now if we were in San Francisco this clearly innocent man may have been convicted simply because they may think he was a republican cowboy. I could see the judge jump in at that point. I think it is a good thing.
"Now is it possible that all 12 of these jurors are wrong and the one judge is right?" Well, duh. Trial by jury is a vital part of our legal systems, but (as Steve well knows) there have been occasions when a unanimous verdict was wrong.
then let this judge just replace juries then. Cuz ya know one powerful guy is certainly uncorruptible compared to 12 random regular people.
No and no
@@jhoughjr1 Yeah, just let a dozen randos flip a coin. Way more efficient.
While not a US case , we had a case of some people of the BLM persuation toppling the statue of a local benefactor in Bristol, UK , who were plainly guilty of criminal damage but were found not guilty by a plainly 'woke' jury.
If there was ever a case of a jury being told not to be so bloody stupid it was then..
@@jhoughjr1 And yet sometimes you get cases like that one dui case where the officer lied in the report and claimed both that there was no one to do the testing to check blood alcohol content and wrote an amount that the check supposedly found.
"You don't add up witnesses. They could have 10 witnesses for one side and you could have 1 good one to outweigh the 10 bad ones"
20 seconds later
"Is it possible that all 12 of these jurors are wrong and the one judge is right?! And I do have a problem with that."
Well you're a great lawyer.
My mother was once on a criminal jury. During deliberations the jury agreed that while the defendant did something, it wasn't proven that he'd did what he was charged with. So the jury found the defendant not guilty.
Blackstone's ratio, the concept that it's better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man suffer, should be the concept that all judges adhere to.
How many innocent men have been freed thanks to DNA and other evidence found years, or even decades after conviction?
When a Judge stands up and intercedes on behalf of a defendant, right or wrong, we should salute this judge. Again, right or wrong, I'd far rather a second trial than the possibility of an innocent man sitting in prison.
Hey Steve, I think you asked a good question. Namely, is it possible the 12 jurors would be wrong and the one judge right. The answer is yes. Now probably that isn't true, but it is still possible. Given that a person's life and welfare and otherwise rights are on the line I think we need to give all the reasons and evidence due regard. The first place I'd look is the reason's you said the judge provided as to why he decided the way he did. After examine those to see if they are valid and rational is to compare them to the reasons on the other side. The standard for conviction remains beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the verifiable evidence, weighting the jurors concerns for credibility (which can be badly bias), and other observable facts that bear on interpretation of evidence and credibility does it suggest reasonable doubt as to the guilt or innocence for this crime. He may be a horrible guy but if he didn't do this crime, he should not be convicted of it. The system should lean toward freeing an guilty person over convicting an innocent one. But the opposite is usually true.
One might think the jurors in the Rodney King case got it very very wrong - thus resulting in the LA riots.
Here's the problem, I think most people think - or tend to think - if a case is brought to trial by the state, then jurors are already going to be slightly in the prosecution's corner, or give them a leg up in the trial. Then if the state puts on even a decent case, with just enough reason to make the jury just an ounce suspicious, they'll convict. You also have to remember, juries are made up everyday citizens. I'm sorry, but I don't really trust even 2/3 of America's common citizenry to really sort out that kind of information, or to truly grasp it. I even don't trust most of them to vote - regardless of which side of the political spectrum they fall on.
I personally think it is a good thing that this happens rarely. Every year we are seeing 10 15 20 25 people having convictions overturned because the jury got it wrong. I personally think this adds another layer of protection to everyone.
I was on a Florida jury back in the 80's, and I later figured out the defendant was already in prison. We were shuffled in and out of the courtroom a lot so we wouldn't see him being brought in and out the side door, and there was an odd comment from the judge about this being a capital case, which confused me because it was about indecent exposure. The only way that makes sense is if it was a third strike. After a very weak prosecution and some pretty clearly coached witnesses (they all used the same words and the shrink that had talked to them had apparently coached them and wasn't very believable either) and a good job by the public defender, we decided we didn't believe their witnesses and returned not guilty. Well the judge came back to the jury room before we could leave, and he "mingled" with us and tried to figure out what had gone wrong and we laughed at the prosecution evidence. I didn't realize how unusual it was for a judge to mingle with the jury after a case. I guess this was a made-up third strike case, and at least with us they hit a bump in the road. I hope he had no power to overturn our verdict or force a retrial.
The judge can refuse a guilty verdict, but a jury finding of not guilty is binding.
No, aquittals are permanent, you cannot retry aquittals, that's considered double jeopardy. The prosecution however may try to stick him with a different crime though.
3rd strikes are life in prison not a capital crime here
@@taoliu3949 The double jepoardy rule has been changed in the UK in certain circumstances, and was used to convict two of the killers of Steven Lawrence
@@herseem Canada's double jeopardy is also weaker than the US 's. The prosecutor can appeal if they think a legal mistake happened. It came up when I was reviewing the case where a man had been charged with murdering his nine year old neighbor. The acquittal was overturned when it was ruled the judge gave incorrect instructions to the jury. The second trial convicted the guy but a few years later DNA evidence proved the defendant's innocence.
Great- I’m from Georgia!!!!!!
I completely think this is a valid option for a judge to have, as long as they are required to provide a detailed explanation to an appellate court. If this power is frequently abused, then that is something else entirely. Whether or not this power should be allowed in lesser cases is yet another issue.
I tend to agree and more so that they should need to give an account. The Malcom 'mac' Wallace murder conviction is a great example of that.
So long as it remains as a way to prevent a travesty of justice instead of causing one, I agree. I would be concerned though in any case where the defendant is being jailed without bail during these multiple trials, (unless of course that’s the point..). I wonder if that doesn’t mean it should automatically go to higher court or a different judge? Idk. I would like to think that experienced judges could be trusted, but I would probably be wrong a larger percentage of the time... And anyone should fear a jury trial, since YOU don’t get to choose your jury of peers, so you might just get sheeple who care more about what’s happening on social media or where they are going for dinner than your future.
This happens more often than people think. It's really good to see judges stepping up against runaway juries.
100% I feel like most juries don't have a Henry Fonda to keep them in line.
In the many jury selections I've been through, been many as I'm always on the list in a small town, the pattern is for the attorneys to pick the most brainless easy to manipulate people they can. If you know the difference between the criminal and civil standard, you're off the jury.
Idk how I sneaked into one, probably because either the defense or prosecutor thought I was prejudiced in a particular direction. But otherwise I have always been dismissed. And my fellow jurors were as you say, the most brainless people. They decided to convict the guy privately before having even heard any evidence or testimony, so they could go home and have dinner! I refused to go along, these were serious charges. They said a lot of things I found disturbing, and I am terrified of being judged by a jury of my "peers".
😱
@@somethings6015 I am a unionized employee. I bet I have more degrees than you. Don't tell me I shouldn't be on a jury because I wasn't born rich.
I've sat on several juries. Jurors bring in their own prejudices for or against, their own preconceptions, their own issues and time constraints. The most unusual deliberations were the ones that started out with discussions of the evidence and not about why we needed to wrap it up quickly and go home. Actual jurors frequently lack the attention span, integrity, and capacity for critical analysis necessary to do the job.
WAY TOO many innocent people in jail from flimsy evidence.
For a conviction, the evidence that is overwhelming.
Rarely a judge is this honest.
Usually goes the other way.
There are plenty of innocent inmates to prove that.
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -Benjamin Franklin
The saying goes back alot further than Benjamin Franklin
Never have a problem with a law that gives a defendant one more way to not be found guilty. The system is stacked so ridiculously against the defendant, from start to finish, that I'll always support the possibility of letting a guilty party go free because of a rule that in other cases prevents someone who isn't guilty from holding the entire bag.
Criminal law should always be hard for the prosecution but that's not how it goes in the USA, generally, unfortunately. And the inability of juries to stick to the facts of law is a crushingly powerful strike against defendants who have to stand up in court against professional liars working for the state.
(try this if you're ever under oath: when the prosecutor inevitably says something like "and remember that you are under oath" reply "I am well aware that I am under oath and must speak truthfully, just as I am aware that you are not")
That isn't always true. There are classical examples where the law is stacked against the plaintiff and the defendant has the benefit of "innocent until proven guilty" twisted to unfairly mean "the plaintiff is a dirty liar until proven truthful".
Our society is so dumbed down that they can't even be counted on to be reliable jurors in this day and age. 🥺
I actually was on a jury where the prosecution really failed. The case was against a man who's ex-wife accused him of smashing the windshield of her car. The man had been seen in the neighborhood, but wasn't seen doing the deed. In fact the prosecution didn't even provide evidence that any windshield had been broken much less that the defendant did the deed. It took us longer to select a foreman than it took us to reach a verdict.
I commend this judge.
I support a judge being able to protect people from Georgians.
⚪⚪⚪⚪⚪⚪⚪⚪⚪⚪⚪⚪
⚫
I have never sat on a jury, but I remember my mom (long deceased) who told of a jury she was on where one of the jurors lied by stating he had no relation to one of the adversaries. In the jury room, a totally different story. It was for damages and did not have to be unanimous, so his favortism failed to help the person he knew. I was a state compliance officer for an agency for 27 + years, and I have interviewed at least a couple thousand workers. I don't do blind faith.
Nothing like putting your fate in the hands of twelve people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.
@Unbroken Around here, the cops and public are always frustrated the judges won't let a good conviction happen, or sentence them to next to nothing. I guess it depends where you are.
I want to be a juror, what do you think of that?
I actually WANT to do jury duty. But sadly my work doesn't allow me that flexibility. Nothing like actually being on a jury to get a feel for what being in court actually is like. Plus, i trust my judgement more than i trust some random person.
@@graniteamerican3547 This is why the job professinal juror needs to be added. It's for people who want to serve and you can pay them a fair wage
I wanted to be a juror, then i realised i wasnt that smart.
I'm just gonna say that I appreciate your videos, Steve! Have a great 2023!
I actually think this is good. The new trial should have a new jury and a new judge, but otherwise I like this rule.
Especially if it's a case that requires beyond a reasonable doubt, a judge disagreeing with the jury should be grounds to take an even closer look at the case.
I'm honestly not a big fan of jury trials in general, but this balances things out a bit.
I was on a jury trial where we found the 2 being charged not guilty. I didn’t stay but I’ve ran into one of the prosecutors twice , 10 years apart. He was brought in to assist a few days prior. He said we made the correct decision. He questioned if the original prosecuting attorney had the right people.
When a judge sees a defendant convicted by a jury with insufficient evidence it is his/her duty To reverse that conviction As a matter of law.
I was on a jury once where halfway through the case, the judge threw the case out, then met with the jury to apologize. he said “Believe me, they’re not all this bad.”
Juries are full of people... and people are quite often idiots. When a person's life is on the line, I'd rather err on the side of caution.
We had a family friend that was a judge. He told us that he has the right to do this overturn a conviction from a jury if he felt the defendant was not guilty. He also said that he can't overturn a jury if they rule him not guilty when he thought that he was guilty. It's never happened but he has the power. For some reason I remember this conversation even though it happened when I was in high school over 30 years ago.
So, you believe that DA will not bring charges against an innocent person. I am glad the judge overturned the jury. A smart DA can prosecute any innocent person. Especially if the person has to rely on public defender.
So, Jury nullification.....but only by a judge? I believe we need this everywhere. Too many crazy jurors out there.
Actually, "jury nullification" is the instance of a jury returning a not guilty verdict despite the overwhelming concrete evidence presented to the jury that would suggest otherwise. The judge cannot overturn the not guilty verdict.
A jury can unanimously believe the defendant is guilty, but if "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not met, they must return with "Not Quilty." This places the highest requirement for the prosecutors to prove the case "beyond a reasonable doubt." I believe the 13th juror concept, when used very carefully, is very important in our justice system.
The main reason I would imagine a judge overturning a guilty verdict in criminal court would hinge around their opinion that the defense attorney failed miserable in their representation of the defended. Not an uncommon occurrence with public defenders that are grossly overloaded with cases.
Better that 10 allegedly guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to prison.
A co-worker who I greatly respect and think highly of, was on the jury of a manslaughter case. She commented only that she was thoroughly disgusted by some of the other jurors.
I am 46 years old right now and my dad always said that his biggest fear in life was that he would be charged and convicted for a crime he didn't commit and be thrown in prison
Judges presumably have vast experience dealing with evidence, witness testimony and credibility, and the law, much more than Joe Public in the jury box. I like the idea of a judge being able to overturn a guilty verdict with a new trial. Something the judge saw with his expert eyes said to him that something wasn't right with this verdict. How many times have we heard of some innocent person going to prison for years because they were wrongly convicted? I'd rather have a fail-safe in place to possibly prevent this than allowing such a travesty of justice to occur to an innocent.
Thank You for the explanation. Interesting piece of state law!
Here's another case where the ego of the prosecutor to win a case versus the weakness of evendence is all that matters to them.
Steve, I disagree with your scepticism over this rule. From the beginning of our country we were built on the idea that it is better to let 100 guilty persons go free than to convict a single innocent person. Today, it is actually very difficult to go free once charged even if you are innocent. 13th juror law seems to me to be a small tool in the tool belt of checks to make sure innocent people aren't wrongly convicted.
I don't know how this is being used, but in my mind it's most appropriate for criminal cases where the judge thinks an innocent person is getting convicted. Never when the judge thinks the person is guilty and going free. Civil cases I'm not sure how practical it is to use.
I'm reminded of the State (of Wisconsin) v. Rittenhouse trial, in which the prosecution misbehaved so egregiously that the defense had many motions before the court for a mistrial with prejudice, meaning he couldn't be re-tried, but the judge withheld ruling on those motions and let the evidence (some of which was wrongly admitted) go to the jury. The jury returned findings of Not Guilty on every count, making all the defense motions moot. This got the judge off the hook for issuing a finding of prosecutorial misconduct, and probably saved that prosecutor's license to practice law. Since the issue never got ruled on, there was never a complaint sent to the bar association.
How did the prosecution misbehave? That case was a shit show thanks in no small part to the judge himself and had a visible bias in favor of Rittenhouse.
@@ArtBear88 The prosecution used different evidence than was provided to the defense, to wit the "drone video" which was given in a very low resolution to the defense, but played at high resolution in court; and the prosecutor **MORE THAN ONE TIME and in front of the jury** called into question Rittenhouse's assertion of his right to remain silent before he took the witness stand. There were other events I don't recall off the top of my head that also resulted in a defense motion for mistrial with prejudice that the judge took under advisement, but did not rule on. I could review video and give an answer that would probably exceed the maximum length of a YT comment.
@@ArtBear88 The Prosecution violated Kyles 5th and 6th amendment rights by breaking the Rules of Evidence and using his refusal to testify to the police against him. There is clear Supreme Court rulings that state that it is unconstitutional to do this. The Judge didn't want political backlash from the heavily liberal government and allowed the prosecution to run rampant in the court.
@@ArtBear88 ahahahahahaha great bait, but a little obvious.
@@ArtBear88 did you even watch the trial?
I’d rather 1000 guilty men go free than a single innocent man imprisoned. It’s good to have this check in place.
Steve, here is an idea for a video. How many times has SCOTUS overturned a previous ruling of its own? Now THAT would make a great book, don't you think?
Better that 100 guilty go free, than that 1 innocent should suffer.
I'm fine with this in criminal cases as jury's are often bad at their job. I've read and heard jurors say things like "we were waiting for the defendant to prove his innocence, and he didn't, so we had to vote guilty" and "why would they have charged [the defendant] id he wasn't guilty."
If the judge found that the State did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, shouldn't the judge have ordered a directed verdict of not guilty? Why a motion for a new trial?
Rittennhouse. Judge was convinced that the prosecution had violated the rules /constitutional rights of Rittennhouse.
Namely the fifth amendment.
Little Binger told the jury they should draw negative inferences from the defendant pleading the fifth.
Judge said let's leave it to the jury and see what they do with the case.
Now I've heard state to state juries don't have to be unanimous to convict.
For murder they do.
For criminal charges yes they do have to be all in agreement, Civil matters might not need to be unanimous.
Sat on a high value civil trial. All 6 women jurors were completely in favor of the good looking smooth talking plaintiff attorney. I forced them to consider the actual evidence during deliberation. We decided in favor of the plaintiff based upon evidence not attorney charisma.
I think the biggest reason judges should be allowed to do this is jurors' emotions can get so inflamed they don't really care about things like facts or the law. There's a classic Law and Order episode where we see this. A gun manufacturer was put on trial after a shooting because the prosecution argued they knew how their product would be used. The jury was so emotional about shootings they voted guilty. The judge threw it out, saying the prosecution's case failed to meet the legal requirements.
That said, of course any time you give someone power there's the risk of it being misused/abused so... yeah.
Thank you from England
In reference to credibility of witnesses I think it is possible that the judge has far more experience than the jurors. I think it is also possible the jurors agreed after three hours because they wanted to go home.
Every time I read about someone sentenced to the death penalty, or even life in prison, I think "I hope to god they got the right person."
I was on a jury and I was the only one that didn't believe he was guilty and we could not leave the room without a unanimous vote we ended up finding bim not guilty.
Being called to jury duty myself I found it very interesting that on the morning I along with lots of other people showed up to the courtroom waiting. While we waited a lawyer walked to one of the desk up front and called a persons name. That lawyer then introduced himself to the (I assume the accused and was correct) as his public defender. He told the gentleman that he would be representing him in court today. I was shocked that the accused just met his attorney that very morning of his trial. I had made a comment in this very quiet courtroom (I thought I had spoken softer than I had) how is this man supposed to get a fair trial if he just met his appointed attorney on the day of his trial. That comment got a laugh and a couple people talking. There was a courtroom staff member who then walked out of the courtroom and returned about ten minutes later. Five minutes later the judge walked in and excused every potential juror from the court. We were sent home.
In fairness I have no idea as to what case any of us would be on as a juror. I was asked by that man’s attorney to speak with him. He said thank you for the comment. I asked why. He stated he just got the case over the weekend and had no idea what he was going to do as he was told not to argue in court that he had not had a chance to meet with his client until that morning. I asked the lawyer how would you be able to represent this man if you had no other contact until the day of the case. He said exactly.
I do not know if all the jurors were pulled together in one courtroom for many or one case(s). The lawyer stated that my comment alone would have bearing on a case as all the potential jurors just heard or may have heard that the case couldn’t have been presented fairly when you have little to no knowledge of the case or had any time to create a defense. The morning of is not that time.
To me this meant a sloppy case could have possibly put an innocent man behind bars.
Steve, I’m sure you know that juries can be just plain stupid and render a verdict based on emotion and not fact. Look at the ridiculous RoundUp cases that Bauer has lost because the juries were scientifically illiterate. Sometimes it takes a person with integrity and intelligence to do the Right Thing.
I love the sayings at the end of your videos. They're almost better than the videos themselves, not really, but almost. Keep up the work.
Perhaps, Steve, it wasn't a case of credibility but a case where the prosecution successfully but in error suppressed exculpatory evidence and the defense failed to bring a successful challenge to the suppression (ineffective assistance of counsel). If this was the case then the general grounds for granting a new trial should by rights, as is the case here, be affirmed. In this case this is exactly what the Georgia Supreme Court did.
I like this rule. All states should have this rule.
We can debate over what powers we should give judges, and the merits of trial by jury. However, in such a serious case I am in favor of anything that grants a more fair trial. If it holds up the trial courts and prevents the jury from convicting every now and then, so be it.
Henderson for Congress - 2024
@@mwduck giggity
@@zacharyhenderson2902 'Cause he's a family guy!
Another not-well-known case involved a wealthy, well-connected businessman under investigation in Texas. His chief accountant was a witness against him, and turned up dead. Five shots to the chest with a hunting rifle which was initially ruled suicide - despite no powder burns and the trigger unreachable by the deceased with the rifles barrel against his chest. A Texas Ranger examined the shell casings and found finger prints of a known criminal actor, who was then brought to trial for first degree murder. The man was convicted of 1st degree murder by the jury.
The judge sentenced the killer to "time served".
The well connected businessman involved was also, then, Governor of Texas, Lyndon Johnson, who later served as vice President to John Kennedy (assassinated by high powered rifle) then President of the USA. During his tenure, JFK's brother Bobby Kennedy was assassinated, as well as Civil Rights Leader, Martin Luther King.
Sometimes, the judge is the cats paw of other people, and such interference should also be investigated.
BTW, that "time served" sentance gave rise to the Phrase, "Texas Justice" meaning a corrupt political justice system.
There can be strong jurors that sway the opinions of, let's say, "weaker" jurors. Not everybody is able to process things as well as others. In a complicated case there is also a lot to remember about the testimony. The jurors don't take notes and what people recall in the jury room can differ sometimes. And who is a faultless judge of character? If credibility was easy to distinguish scammers and con-men would be out of business. But everybody does want to get done and go home. So there can be conflicting understandings and motivations on juries that result in occasional sub-optimal results. The judge does see many trials and witnesses and is rightly granted some discretion in over ruling what he sees as faulty justice.
Always interesting, thank you.
That’s really good because if the guy was really not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then there should have been no way that they found him guilty if they were doing their job as a jury
Thanks for what you do.
Guess time. Hundo, unfolded, between the first and second columns of law books, on the left side of the main cabinet, sandwiched between the first and second rows of the law books. 58.
(14 hours later), You are correct sir, took me 6 mins to find him there.
Secret handshakes and signals. All to help the wicked widow's murderous son.
I thought that in most jurisdictions that a judge can set aside a guilty verdict, and then even dismiss the charges with or without prejudice.
I was just on a jury a few weeks ago. Thankfully we had a pretty professional group of folks who all took notes and we're willing to discuss everything in a civil manner. I consider myself lucky.
In trial advocacy in 2L, we had a jury room with cameras recording the deliberations. It's not a real trial, so no harm no foul, and the participants were told ahead of time that they'd be recorded.
Yeah. You kinda really don't want to see that. My co-counsel was a very shapely and attractive woman, and one of the jurors couldn't stop mentioning it. We're pretty sure he voted in our favor (against finding the defendant liable for damages) because of how hot my co-counsel was.
They also repeated the "tag lines" that the attorneys used -- along the lines of "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit", and it didn't really matter how silly or inept the taglines were. Repetition, primacy and recency are every bit as important as trial-ad professors say they are.
Some rocks should just not be looked under.
Propaganda 101.
You know, there have been something like 200 people on death row that were exonerated. Countless others have spent decades in prison only to be exonerated and released. Jurors sometimes vote on emotion and not facts, so a judge being able to do this makes sense. You are talking about someone's liberty here.
The danger from miscarriage of justice is just so great that you really need to convince that "13th juror", a judge who has been around the block a few times and won't be bamboozled by bullshit the prosecutor may get away with.
Many years ago, I was consulted as an expert witness on a case in West Palm Beach, Florida by the public defender. As it happened, no court testimony was required from me and the defendant was acquitted. He had been charged with stealing a piece of software. The attorney told me afterwards that what had happened was that in what was apparently a parallel civil case on the same subject matter, the court found that the defendant had, in fact, written that software and the plaintiff had failed to do the necessary paperwork to transfer title to himself. The criminal court duly took judicial notice of this finding (which implied that the defendant had never stolen anything.) In this case, however, the judge in the criminal matter sent the matter to the jury anyway rather than grant summary judgement. According to the PD, the judge somewhat regretted doing so in hindsight, and thus wasting the jury's time. However, the jury foreman was later seen chewing out the prosecutor for doing exactly that.
Better for 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person be convicted of a crime they didn't commit.
You might change you mind if your own daughter was raped and tortured and killed...
Tell that to the families of the 100 victims and see how they would respond.
@@dvrdown1981 Ok.
You say that as if it would make us rethink our opinion lol
I appreciate your compassion. But I believe your number needs to be reduced greatly.
@@dvrdown1981 I ha e no problem saying that the “victim”… we have plenty of people that believe they are re the victim when really they are the guilty party.
This is what happens when you have a prosecutor that has immunity for bad acts.
A lesser known cousin to jury nullification
Thank you Steve for educating the public. I just want to say that the Supreme Court of my state decided the Judge can’t.
This happens. Especially when a judge determines the jury are turnip IQ level and the evidence for conviction did not meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold. It is a judges duty to do this
The judge followed the law, I’m ok with this. If the people of Georgia want to change this law, I’m ok with that too.