5 ms·

"In closing arguments this week, prosecutors conceded that their case was based on “all circumstantial evidence,” saying that the jury needed to join together t

"In closing arguments this week, prosecutors conceded that their case was based on “all circumstantial evidence,” saying that the jury needed to join together the pieces of “a puzzle” to reach its conclusion." I hate the whole idea of a jury system. It's insanity. Either the prosecution has proof that she comitted the crime or they don't - the idea that 12 random people can just decide you are guilty based on nothing more than prosecutor telling a nice story is literally insane. Thank god most of the civilized world doesn't use juries like US does.

willcipriano 4y ago
Jury nullification is a good feature: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- credit_guy 4y ago
  Exactly. Jury nullification, in my opinion, is the ultimate form of democracy.
sokoloff 4y ago
The standard for any criminal trial in the US is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”; I’m sure the defense has hammered on this point. If a juror has reasonable doubt, she will not be convicted.
necovek 4y ago
It may sound crazy to you, but relying on a single judge, no matter how versed in law, to make the call is not much better. The property of a jury I like is that any decision has to be unanimous. The thing I dislike more is the entire precedent approach, where laws are made through the court system, instead of strictly through elected officials (though that has drawbacks as well).
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  > any decision has to be unanimous non-unanimous results are also decisive, causing a "mistrial"
  - Kranar 4y ago
    That's a most unusual definition of decisive.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Well there was evidence to consider, it is not like the entire trial was based on conjecture. The main evidence seems to be that she was on video driving in the area he was found dead and it didn't match her statements to the detectives.
legitster 4y ago
This is confusing to me. Jury systems are used across the civilized world, and the requirement for 12 unanimous guilty verdicts is incredibly favored towards defendants.
- lurquer 4y ago
  You have it backwards. You are only acquitted if it is 12 to 0. Anything less than that is a mistrial, and the state can try you again (and you sit in jail until they do.) Didn’t used to be that way originally. It is now in nearly all jurisdictions. In any case, for this reason and many others, the system is grossly tilted towards the prosecution in the US. The US has more prisoners per capita than any country in earth.
  - londgine 4y ago
    Is there a limit as to how many mistrials there can be? Or can trial after trial have 11 jurors vote to acquit, mistrial, wait in jail until new trial, indefinitely?
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      No. It’s pretty easy to force a mistrial. I once saw witness do this deliberately. She testified that the judge was involved in the crime - out of the freaking blue. The witness was very important, and very opposed to testifying. Bad combination.
  - legitster 4y ago
    The number of prisoners has much more to do with the number of laws we enforce and how much effort we spend enforcing them. Actual trial procedures are irrelevant. If anything, there is a lack of jury trials - the majority of cases end in pleas. > In any case, for this reason and many others, the system is grossly tilted towards the prosecution in the US. The prosecution wins more often than not because of selection bias - the prosecution gets to pick which cases they take to trial and more often than not they pick ones they have a good chance of winning. I am not sure what your alternative to a unanimous jury would be, but I think I would take my chances with the jury.
goto11 4y ago
If proof was a binary thing, then you wouldn't need prosecutor and defense either. you could just have some clerk examine the evidence and establish guilt.
- gambiting 4y ago
  Of course, but saying "we saw her driving around the area of the crime, and she bought gun parts months before(and has a good explanation as to why)" is not proof - at least in my opinion it doesn't meet the "beyond any reasonable doubt" requirement for conviction by the American justice system. If the experts could establish that the bullet that killed her husband was fired from said gun then sure, that's proof. Asking the jury to basically "guess" is not justice - it's more like rolling a dice.
  - goto11 4y ago
    The jury has to decide whether the evidence available constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. Someone has to make that decision, just like you are doing in your comment.
CharleFKane 4y ago
“Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.” ==H.D. Thoreau
afarviral 4y ago
Whats your alternative?
- gambiting 4y ago
  Exactly how it works in other countries - prosecution has to establish that she was definitely the killer, not "maybe" the killer. They do that by summoning experts and witnesses, until it's either clear as a day that she killed the person, or....it's not, and then the entire case falls apart. You can't(shouldn't!) convict someone on such flimsy evidence as presented in this case. If you ever listened to the podcast "Serial" that's another great example of that - the prosecution had no substantial evidence, yet the guy got senteced for murder because the prosecutor was able to tell a convicing story to the jury. It's a madhouse.
spoonjim 4y ago
Conviction rates are much lower with a jury than a judge.

willcipriano 4y ago

Jury nullification is a good feature: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
credit_guy 4y ago
Exactly. Jury nullification, in my opinion, is the ultimate form of democracy.

sokoloff 4y ago

The standard for any criminal trial in the US is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”; I’m sure the defense has hammered on this point. If a juror has reasonable doubt, she will not be convicted.

necovek 4y ago

It may sound crazy to you, but relying on a single judge, no matter how versed in law, to make the call is not much better. The property of a jury I like is that any decision has to be unanimous. The thing I dislike more is the entire precedent approach, where laws are made through the court system, instead of strictly through elected officials (though that has drawbacks as well).

jjtheblunt 4y ago
> any decision has to be unanimous non-unanimous results are also decisive, causing a "mistrial"
- Kranar 4y ago
  That's a most unusual definition of decisive.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Well there was evidence to consider, it is not like the entire trial was based on conjecture. The main evidence seems to be that she was on video driving in the area he was found dead and it didn't match her statements to the detectives.

legitster 4y ago

This is confusing to me. Jury systems are used across the civilized world, and the requirement for 12 unanimous guilty verdicts is incredibly favored towards defendants.

lurquer 4y ago
You have it backwards. You are only acquitted if it is 12 to 0. Anything less than that is a mistrial, and the state can try you again (and you sit in jail until they do.) Didn’t used to be that way originally. It is now in nearly all jurisdictions. In any case, for this reason and many others, the system is grossly tilted towards the prosecution in the US. The US has more prisoners per capita than any country in earth.
- londgine 4y ago
  Is there a limit as to how many mistrials there can be? Or can trial after trial have 11 jurors vote to acquit, mistrial, wait in jail until new trial, indefinitely?
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    No. It’s pretty easy to force a mistrial. I once saw witness do this deliberately. She testified that the judge was involved in the crime - out of the freaking blue. The witness was very important, and very opposed to testifying. Bad combination.
- legitster 4y ago
  The number of prisoners has much more to do with the number of laws we enforce and how much effort we spend enforcing them. Actual trial procedures are irrelevant. If anything, there is a lack of jury trials - the majority of cases end in pleas. > In any case, for this reason and many others, the system is grossly tilted towards the prosecution in the US. The prosecution wins more often than not because of selection bias - the prosecution gets to pick which cases they take to trial and more often than not they pick ones they have a good chance of winning. I am not sure what your alternative to a unanimous jury would be, but I think I would take my chances with the jury.

goto11 4y ago

If proof was a binary thing, then you wouldn't need prosecutor and defense either. you could just have some clerk examine the evidence and establish guilt.

gambiting 4y ago
Of course, but saying "we saw her driving around the area of the crime, and she bought gun parts months before(and has a good explanation as to why)" is not proof - at least in my opinion it doesn't meet the "beyond any reasonable doubt" requirement for conviction by the American justice system. If the experts could establish that the bullet that killed her husband was fired from said gun then sure, that's proof. Asking the jury to basically "guess" is not justice - it's more like rolling a dice.
- goto11 4y ago
  The jury has to decide whether the evidence available constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. Someone has to make that decision, just like you are doing in your comment.

CharleFKane 4y ago

“Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.” ==H.D. Thoreau

afarviral 4y ago

Whats your alternative?

gambiting 4y ago
Exactly how it works in other countries - prosecution has to establish that she was definitely the killer, not "maybe" the killer. They do that by summoning experts and witnesses, until it's either clear as a day that she killed the person, or....it's not, and then the entire case falls apart. You can't(shouldn't!) convict someone on such flimsy evidence as presented in this case. If you ever listened to the podcast "Serial" that's another great example of that - the prosecution had no substantial evidence, yet the guy got senteced for murder because the prosecutor was able to tell a convicing story to the jury. It's a madhouse.

spoonjim 4y ago

Conviction rates are much lower with a jury than a judge.