4 ms·
it was a civil suit, not a criminal trial. Ellen Pao was the plaintiff. The jury determined she didn't make a convincing case.
by 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 agoOh. 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 agoaccording 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 agoI 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 agoAccording 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.)