4 ms·

> where a jury decided she was wrong. A jury didn't decide she was wrong. That's not what juries do. A jury decided that they couldn't all unanimously agree be

by jordigh 10y ago

> where a jury decided she was wrong. A jury didn't decide she was wrong. That's not what juries do. A jury decided that they couldn't all unanimously agree beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was right. Just because a jury doesn't convict doesn't mean the problem didn't happen. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/03/ellen-pao-and-the-sexism-you-cant-quite-prove.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/03/ellen-pao-and-t...

metaphorm 10y ago
it was a civil suit, not a criminal trial. Ellen Pao was the plaintiff. The jury determined she didn't make a convincing case.
- jordigh 10y ago
  Oh. Am I wrong in believing that even for a civil trial, the jury must be heavily biased towards the defendant? Does California require jury unanimity to reach a decision in a civil case?
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    according to this https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/200/200.html https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/200/200.h... the burden of proof is > A party must persuade you, by the evidence presented in court, that what he or she is required to prove is more likely to be true than not true. This is referred to as “the burden of proof.” After weighing all of the evidence, if you cannot decide that something is more likely to be true than not true, you must conclude that the party did not prove it. You should consider all the evidence, no matter which party produced the evidence. so in Ellen Pao's case, she (and her lawyers) could not convince the jury that her claim was more likely true than not true. In other words, she argued her case and was not persuasive enough. I'm not a lawyer though, and I don't know if there is a requirement for Jury unanimity or just simple majority.
    - aetherson 10y ago
      I am also not a lawyer, but a quick web search suggests that for civil cases in California, if 3/4s of the jury finds for the plaintiff, the plaintiff wins (ie, 9 of 12).
  - mistercow 10y ago
    According to what I've read about the case, no, unanimity wasn't required. They needed a 75% consensus, apparently in either direction. (I think? This part was unclear to me.)
jimrandomh 10y ago
That case would have been decided under the "preponderance of evidence" standard, since it's a civil trial, not the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard (used for criminal trials) or the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" standard (which is exclusively for death penalty cases).
- jordigh 10y ago
  I see! So is it reasonable to say that the jury "proved" that there was no problem? edit: Hah, judging by the downvotes, it's not! Hehe, this is the first time I'm super-happy to be downvoted. :-)

by jordigh 10y ago

metaphorm 10y ago

it was a civil suit, not a criminal trial. Ellen Pao was the plaintiff. The jury determined she didn't make a convincing case.

jordigh 10y ago
Oh. Am I wrong in believing that even for a civil trial, the jury must be heavily biased towards the defendant? Does California require jury unanimity to reach a decision in a civil case?
- metaphorm 10y ago
  according to this https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/200/200.html https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/200/200.h... the burden of proof is > A party must persuade you, by the evidence presented in court, that what he or she is required to prove is more likely to be true than not true. This is referred to as “the burden of proof.” After weighing all of the evidence, if you cannot decide that something is more likely to be true than not true, you must conclude that the party did not prove it. You should consider all the evidence, no matter which party produced the evidence. so in Ellen Pao's case, she (and her lawyers) could not convince the jury that her claim was more likely true than not true. In other words, she argued her case and was not persuasive enough. I'm not a lawyer though, and I don't know if there is a requirement for Jury unanimity or just simple majority.
  - aetherson 10y ago
    I am also not a lawyer, but a quick web search suggests that for civil cases in California, if 3/4s of the jury finds for the plaintiff, the plaintiff wins (ie, 9 of 12).
- mistercow 10y ago
  According to what I've read about the case, no, unanimity wasn't required. They needed a 75% consensus, apparently in either direction. (I think? This part was unclear to me.)

jimrandomh 10y ago

That case would have been decided under the "preponderance of evidence" standard, since it's a civil trial, not the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard (used for criminal trials) or the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" standard (which is exclusively for death penalty cases).

jordigh 10y ago
I see! So is it reasonable to say that the jury "proved" that there was no problem? edit: Hah, judging by the downvotes, it's not! Hehe, this is the first time I'm super-happy to be downvoted. :-)