John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> On 8/11/2012 5:52 AM, andrel wrote:

> > There is still a chance that he will get away with is with a light
> > sentence.

> There is a chance that the jury will refuse to convict him.

Doesn't the American judicial system grant the judge the right to veto
the jury's decision if it's clearly against the law? (In other words,
even though the accused has been unambiguously established as having
committed the crime, and the law unambiguously establishes a minimum
punishment for such a crime, the jury, for whatever reason, absolves
the accused for a reason not supported by the law. It could happen, and
I'm pretty sure it has.)

Or is this only in some special cases?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 18/08/2012 18:40, Warp nous fit lire :
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
>> On 8/11/2012 5:52 AM, andrel wrote:
> 
>>> There is still a chance that he will get away with is with a light
>>> sentence.
> 
>> There is a chance that the jury will refuse to convict him.
> 
> Doesn't the American judicial system grant the judge the right to veto
> the jury's decision if it's clearly against the law? (In other words,
> even though the accused has been unambiguously established as having
> committed the crime, and the law unambiguously establishes a minimum
> punishment for such a crime, the jury, for whatever reason, absolves
> the accused for a reason not supported by the law. It could happen, and
> I'm pretty sure it has.)
> 
> Or is this only in some special cases?
> 

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" ).

And maybe that the jury needed unanimity too ?
(all the TV episodes in which the last jury's member make an asshole of
himself and votes the opposite of the other... ?)

Post a reply to this message

On 8/18/2012 9:40, Warp wrote:
> Doesn't the American judicial system grant the judge the right to veto
> the jury's decision if it's clearly against the law? (In other words,

Only in the direction of innocence. If the jury says the defendant is guilty 
and the judge determines that the evidence wasn't sufficient for that 
decision, the judge can set it aside.

In particular, each law has a set of things you have to do to have violated 
that law. For example, say that to be convicted of burglary, you have to 
have been on someone else's property, you have to have taken something 
movable, and you have to have left the property with it. If the prosecution 
doesn't present at least some evidence for each of those, then the 
prosecution doesn't even have "prima facia" (initial on-the-face) evidence. 
So if the jury comes back and says guilty, then the judge can say "but 
nobody even claimed he took anything" or "nobody even claimed he went in the 
other person's house."   Of course, this is rather rare.  I'd suspect it 
only happens in situations of weird politically-motivated trials, like 
Assange might have or something.

On the other hand, if the jury comes back and says not guilty, the judge 
can't say "well, *I* think he's guilty, so off he goes."  The jury said he 
didn't do at least one of the things on that list, so he's innocent, and 
it's the jury's job to make that decision, not the decision of the judge.

The judge can throw it out, because he can decide it was essentially a trial 
that never should have happened given the amount of evidence the prosecution 
lawyer was able to present. The judge can't say "sorry, jury is wrong and 
he's really guilty", but he can say "sorry, jury is wrong and they never 
should have heard any of this in the first place."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:09:17 -0500, John VanSickle wrote:

> On 8/10/2012 5:49 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:15:33 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>> They envision the wild west, "an eye for an eye" kind of justice.
> 
> Do you mean the wild west as it actually existed, or the wild west as
> depicted by Hollywood?

Does it actually matter?  I clarified that the goal is "an eye for an 
eye" justice.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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