|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Fundamental deficit in understanding" - jury causes Vicky Pryce retrial.
|
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
I am actually unclear here whether she has to prove it was marital coercion...
Marital coercion, where it is available to be plead (it is not in every jurisdiction) would be an affirmative defense, meaning it has to be plead and proved by the defense. The standard for affirmative defenses is that they must be proved 'by the preponderance of the evidence.' This is much lower than the 'reasonable doubt' standard (basically a 51% standard). The pleading of an affirmative defense is one of the few times that a defendant is ever legally required to prove something in a criminal trial.
There is a lot of handwringing on this thread about the definition of "reasonable doubt," most of it unjustified. Still, the judge in the instant case instructed the jury very poorly as regards the reasonable doubt standard. Almost every jurisdiction has a set of standard jury instructions, which are often modified to suit the needs of a particular case and then submitted to the jury. Jury instructions from Canada, for instance, describe the concept in this way:
quote:
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof beyond all doubt, nor is it proof beyond any imaginary or frivolous doubt. Reasonable doubt is not a doubt based on sympathy or prejudice; instead, it is based on reason and common sense, and logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence. It is not enough that the accused is 'probably' guilty.
This is pretty good, as far as I'm concerned, and is quite similar to most jury instructions in the United States as well. It is quite wrong to say that 'reasonable doubt' is an ordinary expression with no special meaning in the criminal law context; like almost every other legal term, it is a term of art which does have special meaning.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Too simplistic. What does 'reasonable' mean?
'My reason',for some, might be that 'he has shifty eyes and tatoos.'
One of the functions of a jury is to evaluate the trustworthiness of witnesses. It is entirely legal for a juror or jurors to disbelieve a tattooed witness based on his personal experiences or prejudices about the kind of people who get tattoos. With 12 randomly-chosen jurors, you are unlikely to get many people with the same prejudice, unless that prejudice is widely held in society (consider, for example, the differing propensities of white and black juries to convict black defendants in the US in years gone by.)
But that aside, it's not unreasonable to ask for some guidance on what "reasonable" means in a legal context. Plenty of ordinary everyday English words take on special shades of meaning in a legal context. Juries need to understand that they are not required to strain their imaginations to find implausible explanations for why the accused might be innocent, but they need to be a great deal more certain than the "more likely than not" standard that applies in civil cases.
That's about the only sensible question in the lot, though. I tend to share the opinion that they are the sign of an exasperated jury foreman who does not have a dominant character trying to deal with a small group of "confused" jurors in a fair manner.
[ 21. February 2013, 17:48: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Oddly, I suspect the underlying question in this case is actually something much simpler, and much more direct.
Who do you think is telling the truth?
Most of the time, the jury's job is to decide whether it believes what each witness says, – whether they are telling the truth, a pack of lies, or what they now wish had happened.
Given that the accused has admitted that she took the speeding points - i.e. she perverted the course of justice - do you believe her or any of the other witnesses if she or they have told you that she only did it because when she was in her husband's presence, she was in such subordinate awe of him that his will replaced hers, or she was so terrified of what he would do to her if he didn't?
Unless you really believe that might be what happened, rather than that's what some of the witnesses would like to persuade you might have happened, the conclusion is fairly obvious.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
One was a case of negligent child abuse. The jury found that the defendant was not guilty (probably the right call), but when we spoke with them afterwords, they said it was because they couldn't find that he was "intentionally negligent." Intent and negligence are two totally independent concepts. You charge someone with negligent behavior when there is no way to prove that there was intent.
Which should be apparent to anyone with a secondary-school level of understanding of english. Maybe that's the same issue as in Vicky Pryce's case?
Maybe there is a level of comprehension that is a baseline for being able to serve on a jury?
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I'm not sure how one would 'negligently' pervert the course of justice. 'My ex-husband's penalty points suddenly attached themselves to my licence while I was looking the other way'.
Having said that, I'm also a bit puzzled by the concept of 'negligent child abuse'. That may be a difference in linguistic usage. Is it using 'negligent' more the way we would use 'neglect'?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
There are a number of issues that this has raised. Firstly, the challenge to the Jury system, and the claims by all sorts of people that this proves it doesn't work. On the contrary, however, the occurrence of mistrials due to problems with the jury are almost so rare that this one has grabbed the attention. In fact, this is the only one that I can ever remember happening. So ONE problem against hundreds and thousands of successful jury trials does not indicate a problem. It indicates that this could be a problem, but the vast majority of the time, it isn't.
I am a supporter of the jury system, because it forces the legal system to argue its case, and convince a group of relatively ordinary people of their case. They don't have to convince a lawyer, or a judge, they have to convince ordinary people. If they cannot, if the case cannot be proved to ordinary people, then the person is acquitted.
Secondly, is there a case for making potential jurors sit a test? I don't think so, because it would rule out those those don't do well at tests of any sort, and it would allow those who don't want to server to get off.
I do think there is a place for providing some serious training for jurors on their first day. Yes, it would take more time, and cause more problems, but it might make their work easier. It would avoid some of the legal explanation that I believe takes place in a court.
It would also, possibly, avoid some of these questions, which were not silly, but indicated that the jurors had not understood properly (which is my third point). The question of whether they could make a decision based on information not provided in court would be clearly answered.
EE - your analogy is a poor one, because it is not a technical skill required here. The skills are in the lawyers, the judge who provide the professional skills. It is more like a medical conference, where there are options for your treatment, and the medical staff have to argue for why certain treatments should be undertaken.
Of course they don't do that, they discuss it within the medical team, because the time constraints are too tight. But actually, in some cases ( Dr House, for example ), it might work.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm not sure how one would 'negligently' pervert the course of justice. 'My ex-husband's penalty points suddenly attached themselves to my licence while I was looking the other way'.
Having said that, I'm also a bit puzzled by the concept of 'negligent child abuse'. That may be a difference in linguistic usage. Is it using 'negligent' more the way we would use 'neglect'?
Yes, in this case negligent is different.
To commit a crime in the Common Law system, in most cases you need an act and a culpable mental state. There are four basic degrees of mental states: intentional, knowing, reckless, and negligent. My criminal law professor used to explain this way:
Suppose that you wanted to kill your criminal law professor, so you place a bomb under the lectern before class and set it off in class. You intentionally killed the professor, so that would be an intentional crime.
You actually knew that the people sitting in the front row would probably also be harmed or killed. Your act towards those people was knowing.
You probably should have known that setting off a bomb in the room could potentially kill people in the further off rows as well. If those people are killed, your act towards those people was reckless.
And finally, even if you argue that you had no actual idea that someone in the next room might be killed by the bomb, but the prosecution proves that a reasonable person (there's that R word again) would have known that would be a risk, your act towards the people in the next room would be negligent.
The negligent child abuse case was a mess. It was really a neighbor fight, which is why the parents of the supposed victim wouldn't drop the charges. Two kids came home with fireworks, and when their parents found the fireworks and asked where they got them, they said that the neighbor gave them to them. The DA should have got a conviction if he could prove that the neighbor gave the kids the fireworks, and that a reasonable person (not necessarily the defendant) would know that giving kids fireworks could put them in danger.
(What probably actually happened was that the kids found the fireworks, stole them, and then lied when their parents asked them where they got them. Small town criminal law.)
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Blame the judge, who is tasked with ensuring the case is properly presented so the jury can make a reasonable decision. The judge failed.
Further, there is far too much power given to judges, who in many cases are appointed for life. Why not have a lawyer heading a panel of 3 people (could be another number of) that runs the court room, and the other 2 people be non-lawyers? For lawyers to make all important decisions, create procedures and rules only understood by them, among other problems with contemporary legal decision-making has led to great, bankruptcy-creating situations for accused people, guilt declared where there is none, and removed the seat of power in a functioning democracy to intelligentsia.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[
And I certainly have a very hard time believing that the courts, as an arm of State, sit down and plan how they're going to decide the myriad of cases that come before them - especially when they play no part in choosing WHAT the cases are that come before the courts..
So what? How is that relevant?
I don't want my freedom to depend only on the motivations of even honest and well-meaning officials,
And you don;t need a conspiracy to make a bad decision now and again. Everyone can make mistakes. Anyone can be put in a position where they find themselves, willingly or not, doing things that maybe they shouldn't. No-one can every completely escape from the prejudices of their community, or from their own self-interest Everyone is biased. That's why we need checks and balances in courts and in government. And why everybody's interests need to be represented. Juries are one of the the ways we do that. Elections another. A little bit of democracy to lubricate things.
You, and Adeodatus and Yam-pk to boot, all seem to have this weird idea that as soon as someone becomes an 'unofficial' person - a jury member - they magically develop different qualities as a human being from an 'official' person - a judge.
You don't want your freedom to depend only on the motivations of even honest and well-meaning officials, but you're perfectly willing to have your freedom depend on the motivations of even honest and well-meaning jury members.
Adeodatus thinks that judges are apt to assume policemen are trustworthy more than juries would. Why, I've no idea - see the next paragraph. Then he confuses problems with judicial decision being made in private - which I agree is a problem - with the idea that a judicial decision by a judge is inherently a "how do we know" problem (of course a decision by a judge in open court can be scrutinised), and doesn't recognise that a control order would never, ever be a jury decision in the first place.
And Yam-pk comes along and provides me with links to injustices perpetuated BY jury trial, demonstrating perfectly well that juries are just as capable of being conned by government conspiracies as anyone else.
I don't know what the situation is in the UK, but here in Australia more and more offences have the option of a judge-alone trial. Defendants seem to prefer them. The conviction rate isn't going up. If anything it's going down locally - it's felt that you have a better chance with a judge alone, which is why defendants keep choosing the option.
So to have you all treating juries as some great thing that has powers of perceptions and incorruptibility lacked by mere judges seems distinctly weird.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Blame the judge, who is tasked with ensuring the case is properly presented so the jury can make a reasonable decision. The judge failed.
Further, there is far too much power given to judges, who in many cases are appointed for life. Why not have a lawyer heading a panel of 3 people (could be another number of) that runs the court room, and the other 2 people be non-lawyers? For lawyers to make all important decisions, create procedures and rules only understood by them, among other problems with contemporary legal decision-making has led to great, bankruptcy-creating situations for accused people, guilt declared where there is none, and removed the seat of power in a functioning democracy to intelligentsia.
Which procedures and rules are you talking about, though? The actual laws that you can be found guilty of breaking are passed by parliaments.
EDIT: I honestly can't understand how people blaming the judge. Yes, the judge's job is to ensure that the jury CAN make a reasonable decision. That's different from being able to reach into their heads and MAKE them do it. As been observed numerous times now the entire point of the judge declaring a mistrial is because the judge has become satisfied that the jury isn't going to make a reasonable decision. It's the judge who is providing the defendant with the protection here!!
[ 21. February 2013, 21:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Having now read all the questions the jury asked, it seems to me that the major problem was in the jury having difficulty understanding the difference between making an inference (permitted) and speculation (not permitted).
quote:
2. In the scenario where the defendant may be guilty but there is not enough evidence provided by the prosecution at the material time of when she signed [the penalty notice letter] to feel sure beyond reasonable doubt, what should the verdict be: not guilty or unable/unsafe to provide a verdict?
No recorded answer
3. If there is debatable evidence supporting the prosecution's case, can inferences be drawn to arrive at a verdict? If so, inferences/speculation on the full evidence or only where you have directed us to do so, eg circumstantial evidence, lies, failure by Vicky Pryce to mention facts to the police.
"The drawing of inferences is a permissible process, speculation is not."
"You must not speculate and you could not draw safe inferences from debatable evidence because you need to be sure that your inference, you reasonable common sense conclusion, is correct.
"In this case, the evidence on which the prosecution relies is largely undisputed."
It is after this that the question about what constitutes "reasonable doubt" is asked, followed by the question about reaching a verdict when there are no facts or evidence to support it.
That sounds to me like a conclusion was reached by a juror--and there was a disagreement whether the conclusion was an "inference" or "speculation" because there was no direct evidence to support the conclusion. For example, suppose a juror began to wonder whether the defendant was religious and felt compelled (for religious reasons) to be submissive to her husband. But there was no evidence as to the defendant being all that religious. She didn't provide witnesses about being religious. But she was arguing that she felt compelled to do as her husband asked. The jury may have wondered if the concept of religious compulsion was an "inference" from her defense, or just "speculation."
This led to the next couple of questions, again struggling with the difference between an inference and speculation.
quote:
6. Can we infer anything from the fact that the defence did not bring witnesses from the time of the offence such as au pair, neighbours? 7. Does the defendant have an obligation to present a defence?
"There is no burden on the defendant to prove her innocence. On the contrary, there is no burden on the defendant to prove anything at all."
"You must not as I have now emphasised many times, speculate about what other witnesses will have not been called might have said or draw any inferences from their absence."
8. Can we speculate about the events at the time that Vicky Pryce signed the form, or what was in her mind at that time?
"The answer to that is an equally firm no. There's a difference between speculation, which is not permitted, and inferences."
I note that Question 8 circles back to Question 2: the jury's feeling that there was not enough evidence as to what was subjectively in the defendant's mind at the time she signed the form. The jury wanted to know if they needed direct evidence as to her thoughts at that time or were allowed to infer/speculate what was in her mind.
In other words, they were having trouble forming a judgment as to her intent at the time--something that cannot be shown by direct evidence but must be inferred from other evidence. But not speculated from other evidence.
This brings us to the next set of questions:
quote:
9. Your honour, the jury are considering the facts provided but have continued to ask the questions raised by the police. Given the case has come to court without answers to the police's questions, please advise on which facts in the bundle the jury shall consider to determine a not guilty or guilty verdict.
"You decide the case on the evidence. That means it is for you to review all of the evidence and decide which of it you consider to be important, truthful and reliable, and then decide what conclusions, common sense conclusions, you can safely draw by way of inference from that evidence."
10. Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling that she had no choice, ie she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows and he had ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?
"This is not, with respect, a question about this case at all. Ms Pryce does not say that any such reasoning formed any part of her decision to do what she did and the answer to this question will therefore not help you in any way whatsoever to reach a true verdict in this case.
"I must direct you firmly to focus on the real issues in this case and thereby to reach a true verdict according to the evidence."
Again, this left the jury struggling to understand what the difference was between an inference and speculation. Probably that was the question that they should have asked.
And if you don't think that is a tricky question, let me propose this one: I have now set out what I think the jury was struggling with. But I have no direct evidence as to that. Are my conclusions a proper "inference" based on the questions asked or just "speculation"?
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm not sure how one would 'negligently' pervert the course of justice. 'My ex-husband's penalty points suddenly attached themselves to my licence while I was looking the other way'.
I meant the issue of the jury not understanding the words the court used, despite those words being common english words - not that the issue of negligence was in any way relevant to the case in point.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
In the US, the accused almost always has the option of waiving his jury trial right and being tried by a judge in a bench trial. As orfeo mentions, many defendants choose this option, particularly if the case involves complicated questions of law which might confuse a jury, or if the case involves facts or issues which might inflame a jury's passions against the defendant, making it difficult to consider the law and the cold facts.
If anything, a judicial decision made by a judge is more accountable than a decision made by a jury. A judge is usually required to write an opinion (even if rather short) detailing the reasons for his decision. The deliberations of juries, however, are completely confidential, and jurors are not required to give a reason for their vote. It is effectively a black box, and if a jury decided to convict the defendant for coming to court with wet hair and never tell anyone about it, it could do so.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think Hedgehog is right. And I suspect the big problem they have is with the defense of marital coercion.
So they may be thinking - this is an apparently successful career woman who must be quite assertive at work etc. So how can she be coerced by her husband just because he is her husband ? Was there a threat of violence - the defense hasn't mentioned one but they are saying she is coerced ? "Coerced" usually means threat of something ? Well, what about if she was religious maybe that would make her husband just being her husband matter enough to make her do what he told her ? And then they are debating whether these possible sources of coercion constitute inference or speculation.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
quote:
I am actually unclear here whether she has to prove it was marital coercion...
Marital coercion, where it is available to be plead (it is not in every jurisdiction) would be an affirmative defense, meaning it has to be plead and proved by the defense. The standard for affirmative defenses is that they must be proved 'by the preponderance of the evidence.' This is much lower than the 'reasonable doubt' standard (basically a 51% standard). The pleading of an affirmative defense is one of the few times that a defendant is ever legally required to prove something in a criminal trial.
There is a lot of handwringing on this thread about the definition of "reasonable doubt," most of it unjustified. Still, the judge in the instant case instructed the jury very poorly as regards the reasonable doubt standard. Almost every jurisdiction has a set of standard jury instructions, which are often modified to suit the needs of a particular case and then submitted to the jury. Jury instructions from Canada, for instance, describe the concept in this way:
quote:
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof beyond all doubt, nor is it proof beyond any imaginary or frivolous doubt. Reasonable doubt is not a doubt based on sympathy or prejudice; instead, it is based on reason and common sense, and logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence. It is not enough that the accused is 'probably' guilty.
This is pretty good, as far as I'm concerned, and is quite similar to most jury instructions in the United States as well. It is quite wrong to say that 'reasonable doubt' is an ordinary expression with no special meaning in the criminal law context; like almost every other legal term, it is a term of art which does have special meaning.
I don't know what the "handwringing" you're referring to is, which may suggest you were alluding to me...
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
...for the record, what you lined out above is precisely what I was alluding to. Every jury I've served on has received instructions similar to that, which is entirely appropriate and helpful (especially, again, given the differing standards for civil and criminal trials). Saying "reasonable doubt is doubt that is reasonable" is snippy, rude, and could lead to a miscarriage of justice-- hence a mistrial.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
EDIT: I honestly can't understand how people blaming the judge. Yes, the judge's job is to ensure that the jury CAN make a reasonable decision. That's different from being able to reach into their heads and MAKE them do it.
Part of the judge's responsibility is to give them the tools they need to ensure the jury can do their job-- in part, by providing reasonable and non-snarky responses to questions like "what is reasonable doubt?"
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Traveller
Shipmate
# 1943
|
Posted
I have been called for jury service twice. In the UK, you are told to expect to serve for two weeks, but it might get extended if a trial runs over that period.
The first time I had to rearrange a lot of my business life to be available at court. We went through all the training on the first morning, then sat around until mid-afternoon. The court usher then came in and said: "That's it, you can go home and do not need to come back." I assume that the defendant had decided to plead guilty. It was a huge waste of time, effort and money for all concerned.
The second time was last year and I got to sit on two trials. It was an interesting experience for someone who had never been in court before. In one case, we failed to reach a decision about one defendant. Suffice to say that the correspondence with the judge in the Pryce trial does not surprise me. This was another huge waste of time, effort and money for all concerned.
The joke amongst jurors during the considerable periods of waiting around without being told anything useful was "what offence would we have to be convicted of to be sentenced to two weeks community service?"
The decision (again, in the UK) about whether to prosecute a particular individual for a particular offence is taken by the Crown Prosecution Service (a department of government employed lawyers). Their criterion to proceed is whether there is a realistic chance of conviction. They do not know exactly what evidence and arguments will be put up in court by the defence, so are limited to the prosecution evidence in the information at their disposal when they decide to proceed or not.
I suspect that trial by jury has its faults, but, like democracy, is the worst form of criminal justice (or government), except all the others that have been tried.
--------------------
I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live:
I will praise my God while I have my being.
Psalm 104 v.33
Posts: 1037 | From: Wherever the car has stopped at the moment! | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Blame the judge, who is tasked with ensuring the case is properly presented so the jury can make a reasonable decision. ....
I don't know about Canada. I suspect there is a difference between Quebec and the rest. But not in this country, he or she isn't. In a criminal case, that is the prosecution's job. The judge's role is to see fair play, to decide matters of law, and then advise the jury what they should take into account when they make up their mind.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
That post above which seems to be suggesting that the number of females on juries might have something to do with the situation is the second I have seen - the other was much more explicit. Perhaps women should be prevented from becoming barristers and judges as well?
Not knowing what the other reference you are referring to is (a source might be nice - if it was Newsnight don't bother though, its always been a second rate programme that should have been scrapped after the libel it came out with) i can't pass comment on that, but the post above onthis thread deals specifically with the make up of the jury as opposed to the abilities of women to sit on a jury... Over 50% of the jury being women is not representative of wider society by any stretch which, to me, seems to be the point of the post above rather than some form of sexism that you seem to have taken it to be.
Sergius, I did think about providing a link, and decided not to give someone overtly sexist, and accused of it by others in that place, the satisfaction of attracting others to read him. However, it was on a message board at the BBC which will be shut next week, and a whole thread was started to suggest that women were the problem with that jury.
I think ken made a suitable comment here.
And obviously juries before the reforms to move the duty of service from solely property owners did not reflect the population either.
On Question Time, the issue of the age of jurors was raised. When I served, there was someone in one of the trials who was rather younger than the rest of us, and did not wholly grasp the ramifications of what was doing on. He wasn't a problem, though. A greater number of him might have been.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
@Cliffdweller
I don't think I was referring to you (certainly not you alone). In any case, I think you're right that this could have led to a miscarriage of justice had a mistrial not been declared. In the United States, failure to properly instruct the jury is a common argument on appeal, and can be grounds for overturning a conviction. It happens regularly, often for remarks not too dissimilar from what the judge said here.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
The first time I had to rearrange a lot of my business life to be available at court. We went through all the training on the first morning, then sat around until mid-afternoon. The court usher then came in and said: "That's it, you can go home and do not need to come back." I assume that the defendant had decided to plead guilty. It was a huge waste of time, effort and money for all concerned.
Probably not. The fact that there was a jury-- the fact that trial is about the proceed-- is what spurs the settlement. Even tho it feels wasteful, your service probably aided the process.
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
I have been called for jury service twice. In the UK, you are told to expect to serve for two weeks, but it might get extended if a trial runs over that period.
In So. Cal. that used to be the system. We've started a new system of "one trial or one day". You are given a day when you are required to show up for service-- and (as noted upthread) there are very few allowable excuses. You will be there.
They then have 8 hours to find a use for you. If you are selected for a jury you will serve the entire course of that trial-- whether a day, a week, or longer. If not, at the end of the day, you are free to go. If you are selected for a trial that runs less than a week or even less than a day (as in your example upthread), you are free to go.
I've found it has plusses and minuses. You don't know obviously in advance if you'll be chosen for not, so no way of knowing whether to arrange to be gone a week or only a day. But it does mean you won't spend a week cooling your heels. You either get used or you don't. Your name does seem to come up more frequently under this system-- about once every 2 years here.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
EDIT: I honestly can't understand how people blaming the judge. Yes, the judge's job is to ensure that the jury CAN make a reasonable decision. That's different from being able to reach into their heads and MAKE them do it.
Part of the judge's responsibility is to give them the tools they need to ensure the jury can do their job-- in part, by providing reasonable and non-snarky responses to questions like "what is reasonable doubt?"
Judges who have said anything other than 'reasonable doubt is a doubt is reasonable' have been hauled over the coals in appeal courts, precisely because that is the law and not some other bunch of words that may or may not quite be synonyms.
There is nothing 'snarky' about saying "the law doesn't allow me to give you some alternative way of putting it". Because that's exactly what the law says. The test is reasonable doubt. Not slight doubt. Not significant doubt. Not real doubt. Reasonable doubt is what it is, and it's up to the jury to figure out, as a question of fact, whether they think any doubts they have are reasonable ones.
You go ahead and find another definition. If you know what the word 'doubt' means and you know that the word 'reasonable' means, find a general principle to explain what 'reasonable doubt' means that uses other words.
[ 22. February 2013, 00:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
EDIT: I honestly can't understand how people blaming the judge. Yes, the judge's job is to ensure that the jury CAN make a reasonable decision. That's different from being able to reach into their heads and MAKE them do it.
Part of the judge's responsibility is to give them the tools they need to ensure the jury can do their job-- in part, by providing reasonable and non-snarky responses to questions like "what is reasonable doubt?"
Judges who have said anything other than 'reasonable doubt is a doubt is reasonable' have been hauled over the coals in appeal courts, precisely because that is the law and not some other bunch of words that may or may not quite be synonyms.
There is nothing 'snarky' about saying "the law doesn't allow me to give you some alternative way of putting it". Because that's exactly what the law says. The test is reasonable doubt. Not slight doubt. Not significant doubt. Not real doubt. Reasonable doubt is what it is, and it's up to the jury to figure out, as a question of fact, whether they think any doubts they have are reasonable ones.
You go ahead and find another definition. If you know what the word 'doubt' means and you know that the word 'reasonable' means, find a general principle to explain what 'reasonable doubt' means that uses other words.
As said before, something much like the definition Jon in the Nati offered above is commonly a part of jury instructions here in the US. Doing so is certainly not grounds for dismissal, in fact, as noted above, failure to provide that sort of instruction may be grounds for appeal.
As always, there may be a cross-pond difference.
[ 22. February 2013, 01:04: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
What Jon posted is fine. The conclusion that this means 'reasonable doubt' is a legal term of art with a special meaning isn't, though.
Because all that that text does is point out all the things that it doesn't mean. It doesn't give you some special, secret meaning of the words that is different from their dictionary definitions.
I don't see why you would be happy with effectively saying "reasonable doubt is doubt based on reason" but not happy with "reasonable doubt is a doubt that is reasonable".
[ 22. February 2013, 01:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What Jon posted is fine. The conclusion that this means 'reasonable doubt' is a legal term of art with a special meaning isn't, though.
Because all that that text does is point out all the things that it doesn't mean. It doesn't give you some special, secret meaning of the words that is different from their dictionary definitions.
I don't see why you would be happy with effectively saying "reasonable doubt is doubt based on reason" but not happy with "reasonable doubt is a doubt that is reasonable".
No one is asking for some gnostic secret meaning. Jurors would simply like to have clarification of what the limits of "reasonable" (a quite subjective term) entails. The definition Jon posted-- which, as I said, is quite similar to jury instructions I have received-- does define it in terms of the negative, but goes far beyond the way you characterized it above or what the snarky judge provided:
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof beyond all doubt, nor is it proof beyond any imaginary or frivolous doubt. Reasonable doubt is not a doubt based on sympathy or prejudice; instead, it is based on reason and common sense, and logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence. It is not enough that the accused is 'probably' guilty.
Again, I've been on several juries, have always received similar instructions, and would say we always needed instructions similar to this.
[ETA Code - DT, Purgatory Host]
[ 22. February 2013, 05:37: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
A quick google search reveals several standard jury instructions, including:
Conneticut:
The meaning of reasonable doubt can be arrived at by emphasizing the word reasonable. It is not a surmise, a guess or mere conjecture.1 It is not a doubt raised by anyone simply for the sake of raising a doubt. It is such a doubt as, in serious affairs that concern you, you would heed; that is, such a doubt as would cause reasonable men and women to hesitate to act upon it in matters of importance.2 It is not hesitation springing from any feelings of pity or sympathy for the accused or any other person who might be affected by your decision. It is, in other words, a real doubt, an honest doubt, a doubt that has its foundation in the evidence or lack of evidence.3 It is doubt that is honestly entertained and is reasonable in light of the evidence after a fair comparison and careful examination of the entire evidence.4
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt; the law does not require absolute certainty on the part of the jury before it returns a verdict of guilty.5 The law requires that, after hearing all the evidence, if there is something in the evidence or lack of evidence that leaves in your minds, as reasonable men and women, a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, then the accused must be given the benefit of that doubt and acquitted. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that precludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt and is inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.6
Florida:
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.
Mass:
The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charge(s) made against him (her).
What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? The term is often used
and probably pretty well understood, though it is not easily defined. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, for everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. A charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you have compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, that the charge is true.
I have told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty, and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. If you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted.
It is not enough for the Commonwealth to establish a probability, even a strong probability, that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than not guilty. That is not enough. Instead,the evidence must convince you of the defendant’s guilt to a reasonable and moral certainty; a certainty that convinces your understanding and satisfies your reason and judgment as jurors who are sworn to act conscientiously on the evidence.
This is what we mean by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
[ETA Code - DT, Purgatory Host]
[ 22. February 2013, 05:37: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Traveller:
[qb]
In So. Cal. that used to be the system. We've started a new system of "one trial or one day". You are given a day when you are required to show up for service-- and (as noted upthread) there are very few allowable excuses. You will be there.
They then have 8 hours to find a use for you. If you are selected for a jury you will serve the entire course of that trial-- whether a day, a week, or longer. If not, at the end of the day, you are free to go. If you are selected for a trial that runs less than a week or even less than a day (as in your example upthread), you are free to go.
Sounds like the system we have here in New York (or at least Kings County), except people here only have to physically show up if called into pre-trial questioning, or want to be excused.
You're given a code on the summons. You phone the county courthouse or go to the county website, punch in the code and they tell you if you're needed or not. No schlepping across town and sitting around all day only to find out you won't be used. It's a good system.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Further, there is far too much power given to judges, who in many cases are appointed for life.
That's not the case in Canada, where you come from, or in the UK. In Canada it hasn't been the case for many decades. In the UK, which is where we're talking about, it hasn't been the case for 10-15 years, at least, but possibly for many more.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
I have been excused jury service twice on the grounds of not having recovered from being raped in my own home. (I attached a letter from my GP in support of my request).
I wish there was some equivalent service I could do as I regard jury service as a civic duty -just not one I would be capable of doing.
I do volunteer for 10 hours a week at a primary school though.
Huia
[ 22. February 2013, 03:45: Message edited by: Huia ]
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Cliffdweller, do you not see how many times all those examples of 'what reasonable doubt means' simply say what ISN'T reasonable?
That is not, in any normal sense, defining the word. It's like going into a fruit shop and explaining to someone what an apple is by pointing to everything BUT an apple and saying "that isn't an apple".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Orfeo , what is clear is that Green v R sets out the law here, but that the development of the law has been different in some, if not all, US jurisdictions and perhaps in Canada as well.
There was a reference upthread to judges reaching their decisions in private. That is true to the very limited extent that a judge will often reserve the decision and write it out of court. But that decision is the delivered in court, at least to the parties. The judge must give clear and cogent reasons for a decision - see Soulemezis v Dudley . If those are not given, the decision may be set aside on appeal. Sometimes, decisions are restricted at least for a brief period. For example, a decision in relation to a procedural matter in a criminal trial may be given only to the parties until the trial itself has been completed. It is then made available publicly. Often, matters involving children are normally delivered in such a manner that the child cannot be identified. Otherwise, the rule is that decisions are public.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
My bottom line on the jury system is, if I'm ever in court I want to be heard by a dozen of the common people of England, not by some port-swilling public school pensioner in a wig.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
It is evident from the transcript and questions that the judge had given the jury written advice on 'reasonable doubt' which he felt the law prevented him from expanding on.
The Judicial Studies Board's Crown Court Bench Book - Directing the Jury (PDF 3413kb) states that: quote:
The prosecution proves its case if the jury, having considered all the evidence relevant to the charge they are considering, are sure that the defendant is guilty. Further explanation is unwise.
If the jury are not sure they must find the defendant not guilty.
Note: Being sure is the same as entertaining no reasonable doubt. See Archbold 4-384/385; Blackstone F3.37-39, for a discussion of terms.
They refer to the case of R v. Majid [2009] which illustrates the problem of judges trying to give the jury more help with 'reasonable doubt'.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Marital coercion, where it is available to be plead (it is not in every jurisdiction) would be an affirmative defense, meaning it has to be plead and proved by the defense. The standard for affirmative defenses is that they must be proved 'by the preponderance of the evidence.' This is much lower than the 'reasonable doubt' standard (basically a 51% standard). The pleading of an affirmative defense is one of the few times that a defendant is ever legally required to prove something in a criminal trial.
Thanks.
That would suggest that if the jury were arguing about 'reasonable doubt', they weren't addressing the specifics of the case before them because reasonable doubt wasn't the standard to which they should have been working - e.g. they were trying to find her not guilty on some grounds other than what the defence was arguing, and which would constitute 'reasonable doubt'.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Its a crap analogy. The people doing the "operation" are the judges and lawyers and police and prison officers and so on. All very highly trained (we hope)
You're prepared to trust an unelected, biased, masonic ridden, institutionally racist, misogynist elite to do the job for you?
There are way more bent coppers and judges than there are thick jurors. I wouldn't trust the judiciary on anything even if I could see and hear all they do ..... as for the Police well, personal experience suggests too mnay are in it for the thrill of a bit of aggro or looking after number 1
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
]You, and Adeodatus and Yam-pk to boot, all seem to have this weird idea that as soon as someone becomes an 'unofficial' person - a jury member - they magically develop different qualities as a human being from an 'official' person - a judge.
Where did you get that ideaz from? I not only don't believe it, I specifically said the opposite in the post you quoted from.
quote:
]
So to have you all treating juries as some great thing that has powers of perceptions and incorruptibility lacked by mere judges seems distinctly weird.
No, I still don't see where you are getting this from. Are you mistaking me for someone else? Anyway, yourirrelevant are entirely refuted in my poosting that you quoted without reading, so I won't repeat it.
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Its a crap analogy. The people doing the "operation" are the judges and lawyers and police and prison officers and so on. All very highly trained (we hope)
You're prepared to trust an unelected, biased, masonic ridden, institutionally racist, misogynist elite to do the job for you?
There are way more bent coppers and judges than there are thick jurors. I wouldn't trust the judiciary on anything even if I could see and hear all they do ..... as for the Police well, personal experience suggests too mnay are in it for the thrill of a bit of aggro or looking after number 1
Er.... um.... Oh well....
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Cliffdweller, do you not see how many times all those examples of 'what reasonable doubt means' simply say what ISN'T reasonable?
That is not, in any normal sense, defining the word. It's like going into a fruit shop and explaining to someone what an apple is by pointing to everything BUT an apple and saying "that isn't an apple".
Did you not see where I said
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The definition Jon posted-- which, as I said, is quite similar to jury instructions I have received-- does define it in terms of the negative...
That would be a clue that I noticed they were defining it in the negative.
But this isn't a semantics lesson. The point is that all of the jury instructions that have been posted-- both mine and Jon's-- do clarify the term, even if they do so by saying what it is not. And that's what juries are asking for.
Because in Real Life this isn't about scoring rhetorical points. It's about people's lives and freedom.
[ 22. February 2013, 14:42: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Marital coercion, where it is available to be plead (it is not in every jurisdiction) would be an affirmative defense, meaning it has to be plead and proved by the defense. The standard for affirmative defenses is that they must be proved 'by the preponderance of the evidence.' This is much lower than the 'reasonable doubt' standard (basically a 51% standard). The pleading of an affirmative defense is one of the few times that a defendant is ever legally required to prove something in a criminal trial.
Thanks.
That would suggest that if the jury were arguing about 'reasonable doubt', they weren't addressing the specifics of the case before them because reasonable doubt wasn't the standard to which they should have been working - e.g. they were trying to find her not guilty on some grounds other than what the defence was arguing, and which would constitute 'reasonable doubt'.
I think it's entirely possible for a jury to be confused/ seek clarification in more than one area/issue.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Marital coercion, where it is available to be plead (it is not in every jurisdiction) would be an affirmative defense, meaning it has to be plead and proved by the defense. The standard for affirmative defenses is that they must be proved 'by the preponderance of the evidence.' This is much lower than the 'reasonable doubt' standard (basically a 51% standard). The pleading of an affirmative defense is one of the few times that a defendant is ever legally required to prove something in a criminal trial.
Thanks.
That would suggest that if the jury were arguing about 'reasonable doubt', they weren't addressing the specifics of the case before them because reasonable doubt wasn't the standard to which they should have been working - e.g. they were trying to find her not guilty on some grounds other than what the defence was arguing, and which would constitute 'reasonable doubt'.
I think it's entirely possible for a jury to be confused/ seek clarification in more than one area/issue.
If Jon is correct (and I think he is) that marital coercion is an affirmative defense for which the defendant has the burden of proof, then I can understand the jury being confused. Consider questions 6 & 7 that they asked and the judge's response:
quote:
6. Can we infer anything from the fact that the defence did not bring witnesses from the time of the offence such as au pair, neighbours? 7. Does the defendant have an obligation to present a defence?
"There is no burden on the defendant to prove her innocence. On the contrary, there is no burden on the defendant to prove anything at all."
"You must not as I have now emphasised many times, speculate about what other witnesses will have not been called might have said or draw any inferences from their absence."
No burden on the defendant to prove anything??? But if she is asserting an affirmative defense, then there IS a burden on her to establish it. By telling the jury that she did not have to, the implication to the jury was that the burden was on the prosecution to "disprove" the affirmative defense that the defendant had not established. That then does raise the question of what we mean by "reasonable doubt" in that context: can you have a reasonable doubt arising from an asserted affirmative defense that was not established by the defendant but which the prosecution did not dis-prove? Especially when the judge has told you that the defendant did not need to prove anything?
While I still think that the jury was confused by the difference between what constitutes an inference and what constitutes speculation, this portion of the questioning suggests that the jury was unclear about who had what burdens of proof--and unfortunately the judge's response to Questions 6 & 7 just added to their confusion.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Without having heard the judge's summing up or seeing the written directions he gave the jury, it is rather hard to assess the legitimacy of the ten questions they raised, or the fairness of his responses to them. After some Googling, I have now found the judge's directions to the jury. I think these are the oral directions, I'm not sure whether there were additional written directions, though there was clearly also a bundle of papers for the jury.
I am interested to note that it is not just the (experienced) judge, but also the prosecutor who have raised doubts about this particular jury.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Without having heard the judge's summing up or seeing the written directions he gave the jury, it is rather hard to assess the legitimacy of the ten questions they raised, or the fairness of his responses to them. After some Googling, I have now found the judge's directions to the jury. I think these are the oral directions, I'm not sure whether there were additional written directions, though there was clearly also a bundle of papers for the jury.
I am interested to note that it is not just the (experienced) judge, but also the prosecutor who have raised doubts about this particular jury.
hmmm... interesting that while it is quite detailed in some points, it offers absolutely no help in the areas they raised, and gives the same non-definition of "reasonable doubt". It would be useful to know if there is (contrary to the practice in most other jurisdictions we've seen) some legal barrier to providing clarification on that point, or simply the judge's own reluctance/ resistance. In any event, it is again clear why the jury was confused.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Given the lengths I have to go to explain somethings to colleagues in my line of work - I am quite prepared to believe that some juries would have found those instructions very confusing; even though they are logically expressed.
It took me an hour - with diagrams and a worked example - to explain the concept of a normal distribution and a confidence interval to professional non-graduate staff, and some of them still can not apply or explain the concept independently.
My consistent feedback at work over the past ten years, from collegaues and managers, is that I am good at teaching and explaining concepts. It could be me, I accept that, but I think it is more likely that long chains of abstract reasoning can be difficult to follow if you haven't spent quite a long time learning the skill.
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Judges are given a strong steer that they should not try to help a jury with the meaning of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. From my earlier post quote:
The prosecution proves its case if the jury, having considered all the evidence relevant to the charge they are considering, are sure that the defendant is guilty. Further explanation is unwise.
(The Judicial Studies Board's Crown Court Bench Book - Directing the Jury (PDF 3413kb))
In the directions the judge tells the jury that quote:
The standard of proof that the Prosecution must achieve before you could convict is simply this – the prosecution must make you feel sure of guilt
and then goes on to point out that making the jury 'sure' is the same as proving beyond reasonable doubt; quote:
that is the same as, but no more than, the proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
In his response to their subsequent question he tells them that the words are ordinary English words. Perhaps he might have added that they should be understood in their ordinary English sense, but I don't know if that would have helped.
[ 22. February 2013, 16:15: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Judges are given a strong steer that they should not try to help a jury with the meaning of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. From my earlier post [QUOTE]The prosecution proves its case if the jury, having considered all the evidence relevant to the charge they are considering, are sure that the defendant is guilty. Further explanation is unwise.
Yes, but if you have been following the thread, you will see that we have already presented several examples to demonstrate that this is in fact NOT the standard in many, many jurisdictions, and in fact, that many (most?) have specified jury instructions that provide much more clarity re the definition. So the question is what sorts of barriers were in place in this particular jurisdiction. As I said in my immediate prior post.
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
]In his response to their subsequent question he tells them that the words are ordinary English words. Perhaps he might have added that they should be understood in their ordinary English sense, but I don't know if that would have helped.
No, it certainly would not. However, something like the language provided in the many examples we have provided from various jurisdictions would.
[ 22. February 2013, 17:26: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Without having heard the judge's summing up or seeing the written directions he gave the jury, it is rather hard to assess the legitimacy of the ten questions they raised, or the fairness of his responses to them. After some Googling, I have now found the judge's directions to the jury. I think these are the oral directions, I'm not sure whether there were additional written directions, though there was clearly also a bundle of papers for the jury.
I am interested to note that it is not just the (experienced) judge, but also the prosecutor who have raised doubts about this particular jury.
hmmm... interesting that while it is quite detailed in some points, it offers absolutely no help in the areas they raised, and gives the same non-definition of "reasonable doubt". It would be useful to know if there is (contrary to the practice in most other jurisdictions we've seen) some legal barrier to providing clarification on that point, or simply the judge's own reluctance/ resistance. In any event, it is again clear why the jury was confused.
It seems clear enough to me:
quote:
It is you, not me, who decide, for example, what evidence you accept as being truthful and reliable (whether in whole or in part), or what evidence you reject as being untruthful or unreliable (whether in whole or in part). Where you do find evidence to be truthful and reliable, it is you, not me, who decide what, if any, reasonable common-sense conclusions to draw from that evidence. Indeed the ultimate question of fact in relation to the Defendant, as to whether she is guilty or not guilty of the charge that she faces, is entirely a matter for you, not me.
and
quote:
The standard of proof that the Prosecution must achieve before you could convict is simply this – the prosecution must make you feel sure of guilt (that is the same as, but no more than, the proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt).
In other words, its the jury's job to decide what is reasonable, not the judges.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It took me an hour - with diagrams and a worked example - to explain the concept of a normal distribution and a confidence interval to professional non-graduate staff, and some of them still can not apply or explain the concept independently.
That's about as long as it took our university lecturers to explain it to us in our introductory-statistics-for-scientists courses. With diagrams and worked examples. And some of us still couldn't apply or explain the concept independently. Maybe that's just how long it takes.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Quite, but I don't think it is more complicated than what the judge was trying to lay out in his original directions to the jury. But they are apparently supposed to take it and run with it without a problem.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Viewing the broad picture, it is now understandable why the jury was so confused and I would not state that they were abnormally stupid. Also, for the reasons BroJames has discussed, I think the judge was limited in how much he could say to straighten them out. It is an unfortunate situation, but it happens.
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I am interested to note that it is not just the (experienced) judge, but also the prosecutor who have raised doubts about this particular jury.
Actually, I'd phrase that the other way around. The prosecutor puts out a case that the prosecutor believes is solid and the jury does not come back with a conviction. The prosecutor grumbles about the jury. Naturally. I have met plenty of attorneys who lose a jury trial and immediately start grumbling about how the jury just didn't understand the attorney's brilliant legal arguments, etc. That's common. File under "grapes comma sour."
What is unusual in this case is that the judge criticized the jury. Even granting that the judge may have felt that the jury was wrong-headed on this, I am not sure that it was appropriate for a judge to make such public comments. Sure, back in chambers, gripe to the other judges about them, but don't make it public! How would you like to be the next jury sitting with that judge? Awkward!
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So the question is what sorts of barriers were in place in this particular jurisdiction.
What I tried to make clear above is that in this jurisdiction judges are advised/directed only to tell the jury that "they must be sure that the defendant is guilty." They are warned that they shouldn't explain further - " Further explanation is unwise." Maybe in the light of this case that guidance will be revised. (Similar guidance to judges is given in Scotland (s 2.1.3 para 2 on p.8))
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Viewing the broad picture, it is now understandable why the jury was so confused and I would not state that they were abnormally stupid.
But surely all the other juries that judge has briefed have been told the same thing? They've coped. Presumably, given how (as others upthread have shown) judges are limited in how much defining they can do, other judges issue a similar briefing. Hundreds of juries have understood without asking enough questions to make the judge think they just haven't got it - maybe this one particular jury was just, er, exceptional?
As to mentioning it in public, it's public money spent on the trial, I guess the judge had to give reasons, so he gave the reasons.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
