Comments on: Judge reverses conviction after polling jurors

By: SPO

SPO — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:48:17 +0000

The sentence is logically irrelevant to guilt/innocence–therefore, the idea that the Constitution requires that juries be told of, or polled afterwards for their reactions to, sentencing issues is about a dumb idea as is possible. Nothing in the Constitution requires that juries be told of irrelevant information, and while jury nullification is an important check on the power of the government (i.e., a jury of citizens has to, if you demand, sign off on longer than 6 months incarceration), there is nothing in the Constitution that requires giving the jury more ammunition.

Maybe we should tell juries about the sentence–but federal judges have no business flouting the law in such a manner. Weinstein ought to resign. He is an embarassment.

By: Stephen Gustitis

Stephen Gustitis — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 02:08:05 +0000

Juries have their advantages and disadvantages, of course. I’d say the Texas system gives the defense flexibility. I guess I can firmly say I like having the option of having the jury assess punishment. Whether I chose to go that way depends on my facts and what I hope to accomplish.

By: utopian007

utopian007 — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:33:09 +0000

I had one set of jurors become really upset when they saw the judge max out my guy to 15 years on a possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. One was heard leaving the courtroom saying, “If I had known she would do that, I would have voted not guilty to that charge too.” (He had just been acquitted of a second degree murder charge on a self defense argument)

The case pretty much makes the decision whether I want the jury to know. On all cases where it is strictly the minimum mandatory sentence, I am in favor. If it has habitual offender consequences, I am not as much as my jury might get some preconceived ideas about my client that I don’t want them to have.

By: Gideon

Gideon — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 23:20:22 +0000

What is your stance on prior convictions? Do you think that juries should be aware of that too?

By: Gideon

Gideon — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 23:07:16 +0000

So you’re firmly in favor of having juries know of or decide the punishment?

By: jigmeister

jigmeister — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 21:34:21 +0000

As a retired prosecutor, I am for full disclosure. Give the jury the full sentencing information on all possible verdicts, including NG by reason of insanity, enhancements, lessors. I have more faith in juries than judges to adhere to community values.

By: Stephen Gustitis

Stephen Gustitis — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 12:17:34 +0000

If I may add one more thought? In Texas where juries can assess punishment, I’ve had juries obviously compromise on punishment when guilt may have been in question. The best example were murder cases when self-defense was a credible issue but the strong jurors pushed for a conviction. At the punishment phase, the jurors who supported a self-defense acquittal now get their way with a probation verdict. (however, in the Texas legislature’s infinite wisdom they have eliminated probation in murder cases)

By: Stephen Gustitis

Stephen Gustitis — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 11:41:49 +0000

In Texas State courts the accused has the option of selecting either the judge, or the jury, to assess punishment if convicted. If the accused elects the jury, then the jurors are questioned during voir dire about their willingness to “consider” the full range of possible punishment upon a conviction. If the lawyers think that lesser included offenses are a possible result, they are permitted to ask the potential jurors about those punishment ranges, as well. If the accused is an alleged habitual offender, the jury is permitted to know about the enhanced punishment range for an habitual offender, too.

Over the years I have made strategic decisions whether to elect the judge or jury for punishment based on what the range of punishment was. For instance, in cases were my client was an habitual offender, I usually don’t want the jury hearing about “enhanced” ranges of punishment since they naturally assume my client has a criminal record and they use that against them during the guilt/innocence phase of trial. On the other hand, if I have a probation eligible client, I would often elect the jury since I could intimate during voir dire the lack of serious criminal record. So, full disclosure is good, only if it can’t hurt us.

I don’t know if I answered any questions, or added to the discussion here. But Windy’s comment about airplanes vs. cars was brilliant.

By: Windypundit

Windypundit — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 06:06:25 +0000

One of the mysteries facing every juror is the meaning of “reasonable doubt.” As far as I know, the legal system has resisted most attempts to clarify the meaning of “reasonable” or make it easier to apply. Jurors aren’t told how careful they should be.

In most other fields where quality matters, the amount of care given to establishing quality depends on the consequences of an error. This is why airplanes are inspected more carefully than cars, and pacemakers more carefully than flashlights.

I think letting jurors know the consequences of a guilty verdict will give them a clearer idea of how much doubt is reasonable. A nagging doubt for six months suspended might seem more reasonable for a five year minimum.