On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:27:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The judge *could* declare a mistrial, but maybe not after the case goes
>> to the jury.
> 
> I believe that's correct. Personally, I don't understand why they're
> allowed to call a mistrial in the *middle* of a trial for conduct of the
> prosecutors, myself, but I'm not a lawyer.  (Mistrial because the entire
> jury got hit by a bus or something, sure.)

I think because if the lawyers don't follow the rules, what they do could 
mislead the jury.  It's gotta be a tough job, presenting your side of the 
case from a factual standpoint but being persuasive that your view of the 
facts is the correct view.

There are days where I think that if I had had the motivation, I could've 
gone into law.  I've been told by more than a few people who do practice 
law that I've got good instincts and a great attention to detail that 
would serve me well in the profession.

Part of the reason, I think, was that in dealing with a difficult person 
(the one who filed the suit), I maintained my objectivity in 
communications - something a lot of people have a difficult time doing 
when confronted with a person who is arrogant.

>> Come to think of it, though, I think you're right - double jeopardy
>> might enter if he did that.
> 
> I believe that's correct, yes. Indeed, the judge isn't even allowed to
> ask the jury *why* they decided the way they did. 

Well, I think that depends on the court - in the drug case I sat on the 
jury for, the judge and I discussed the case once it was done (I had a 
question about the procedure and documents we were given - and it was 
hard to discuss that without discussing the verdict because it had to do 
with the definitions of the crime we were given).

> There was an old case
> where the judge threatened to lock up the jury until they decided the
> suspect was guilty, from which a lot of the current system flows.

That doesn't surprise me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message