On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:40:00 +0100, andrel wrote:

> Then it
> is not about fact anymore but about how to play the jury.

The jury is responsible for determining the facts in the case, so the 
presentation to the jury is very important for both the prosecution and 
the defense.

The only exception to that that I'm aware of in the US is if the 
defendant asks for a bench trial (meaning the judge plays the role of the 
jury).  In the appeals process, bench trials are standard operating 
procedure, again as I understand it - because the judge is responsible 
for deciding if the lower court made a reversible error.

But in normal circumstances in the US, the judge interprets the law for 
the jury, the jury determines the facts, and decides if the facts support 
the charge based on the law or laws that the defendant is accused of 
breaking were in fact broken.

The prosecution and the defense put together a packet for the jury, 
though, that outlines different perspectives on the law.  The packets 
from both sides are given to the jury to read and often you can't tell 
which comes from who (they're not identified in my experience).

For example, the jury I sat on was for a drug case; the defendant was 
accused of drug possession and possession of drug paraphernalia.  In the 
packet that the jury received, there was a case history where the 
defendant was acquitted of possession of drug paraphernalia because the 
prosecution didn't prove intent to use.  According to the judge (whom I 
spoke to about this after the case was over), the inclusion of this 
particular case history is common from defense attorneys because it could 
be seen to set a precedent, even though the law clearly states that it's 
possession and not the "intent to use" that defines whether the accused 
is guilty of that particular crime or not.

In this particular case, ironically, the charges that were brought were 
not what the prosecution (or the cops) were hoping for; the cops had been 
led to believe that they had manufacturing equipment in the apartment for 
crystal meth, but they didn't find any.

I think it's a shame people try to get out of jury duty; it's actually 
quite fascinating, at least I think so.

Jim

Post a reply to this message