On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:49:13 +0200, Le_Forgeron wrote:

> I thought, as seen on TV, that the jury of USA/states was only in charge
> of "guilty/not guilty" question, and the judge was to set the sentence
> (based on the ratio of the jury or the phase of the moon, and probably
> about the declaration of the "candidate" ).

The jury decides guilt (or lack thereof, not defined as 'innocence' but 
rather as 'insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict').  In some 
cases, the jury also is involved in sentencing.

The judge is supposed to essentially act as a referee - deciding what is 
and isn't admissible.

It is possible to ask for a "bench trial" (that might be civil torts 
only, I'm not sure on that), in which the judge is the jury.

> And maybe that the jury needed unanimity too ?

For guilt/lack of guilt, yes, in criminal court.  In capital cases, IIRC, 
they also need to have unanimity for a death penalty to be given.

> (all the TV episodes in which the last jury's member make an asshole of
> himself and votes the opposite of the other... ?)

That was me in the one time I served as a juror, and only in the initial 
vote.  After further deliberation, I decided that my read of the law was 
not correct.

That was confirmed by the judge after the case was over - I had a chance 
to talk to him, and he explained that the jury instructions are assembled 
by counsel from both sides, and for this type of case, the material that 
the defense put in that was swaying my vote was a precedent regarding the 
charge of possession of drug paraphernalia requiring "intent to 
use" (which wasn't demonstrated by the prosecution).  That precedent is 
attempted to be used by 'green' defense lawyers who don't understand that 
it doesn't apply in this particular case (it's been over 10 years, so I 
don't remember the details).

Jim

Post a reply to this message