5 ms·

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 un

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.
- ngcc_hk 4y ago
  So say we all. And there is a reason why Hong Kong national security law, which has cover the whole earth and possibly the moon and mars etc i.e. including any reader here, does not opt for jury system, but appointed judge. Good God someone really argued for non-jury. I am all ears, as open as I can. But my heart and mind said no.
- lurquer 4y ago
  > If anything, there is a lack of jury trials - the majority of cases end in pleas. People take pleas because the jury system is broken and if convicted you’ll get far more time. As far as alternative? Jury’s are fine. The problem is the Supreme Court’s holding from a century back that a non-unanimous verdict is a mistrial and res judicata (or double jeopardy) is not triggered. As the other poster pointed out, some jurisdictions allow an aquital with less than 12. But, the problem is this: you are presumed innocent and the State should have one chance to prove you guilty. If the State blows it, it should be over. The US fundamentally changed this. If the State can’t convince 12 of your peers that you’re guilty, there is obviously a ‘reasonable doubt.’ But that’s all lip-service… doesn’t mean anything any more. You can prosecute a person a dozen times, with 90% of the jurors (collectively) finding not-guilty, and the person could still be convicted if the last set of jurors ruled 12-0 in favor of the state. It’s a joke.
  - legitster 4y ago
    But mistrials are pretty dang rare - I don't think this is a reasonable concern.
    - guiambros 4y ago
      Not a surprise, given 90-95% of cases end in a plea bargain [1]. Most defendants (even innocent ones) would rather give in to the threats of prosecutors and accept a guaranteed lower sentence than risk a much harsher one in trial [2]. So yeah, you have to have a really strong conviction your case will stand in court to reject a plea deal and try your odds in trial. IMO, the system is made to be fair at the surface level, but it's utterly broken when you consider second-order consequences. The incentives are tilted towards prosecutors being incentivized for putting people in jail no matter what (and jail systems profiting from it). [1] https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/document/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/docu... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfcq5pF8u8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfcq5pF8u8
junar 4y ago
In this case, not quite. > A guilty verdict in the case must be unanimous among the jury. A not-guilty verdict does not need to be unanimous, it only requires 10 jurors to believe she is not guilty. https://www.koin.com/news/brophy-trial/jury-instructions-nancy-brophy-murder-trial-05242022/ https://www.koin.com/news/brophy-trial/jury-instructions-nan...
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  Still makes a mockery of the concept of innocent until proven guilty and double jeopardy. 3/4 of the jury believes you're not guilty and the prosecutor still gets to take another shot at a conviction. It should be reversed. If the prosecutor can't get at least 10/12 guilty votes on the first try, you should be acquitted.

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.

ngcc_hk 4y ago
So say we all. And there is a reason why Hong Kong national security law, which has cover the whole earth and possibly the moon and mars etc i.e. including any reader here, does not opt for jury system, but appointed judge. Good God someone really argued for non-jury. I am all ears, as open as I can. But my heart and mind said no.
lurquer 4y ago
> If anything, there is a lack of jury trials - the majority of cases end in pleas. People take pleas because the jury system is broken and if convicted you’ll get far more time. As far as alternative? Jury’s are fine. The problem is the Supreme Court’s holding from a century back that a non-unanimous verdict is a mistrial and res judicata (or double jeopardy) is not triggered. As the other poster pointed out, some jurisdictions allow an aquital with less than 12. But, the problem is this: you are presumed innocent and the State should have one chance to prove you guilty. If the State blows it, it should be over. The US fundamentally changed this. If the State can’t convince 12 of your peers that you’re guilty, there is obviously a ‘reasonable doubt.’ But that’s all lip-service… doesn’t mean anything any more. You can prosecute a person a dozen times, with 90% of the jurors (collectively) finding not-guilty, and the person could still be convicted if the last set of jurors ruled 12-0 in favor of the state. It’s a joke.
- legitster 4y ago
  But mistrials are pretty dang rare - I don't think this is a reasonable concern.
  - guiambros 4y ago
    Not a surprise, given 90-95% of cases end in a plea bargain [1]. Most defendants (even innocent ones) would rather give in to the threats of prosecutors and accept a guaranteed lower sentence than risk a much harsher one in trial [2]. So yeah, you have to have a really strong conviction your case will stand in court to reject a plea deal and try your odds in trial. IMO, the system is made to be fair at the surface level, but it's utterly broken when you consider second-order consequences. The incentives are tilted towards prosecutors being incentivized for putting people in jail no matter what (and jail systems profiting from it). [1] https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/document/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/docu... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfcq5pF8u8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfcq5pF8u8

junar 4y ago

In this case, not quite. > A guilty verdict in the case must be unanimous among the jury. A not-guilty verdict does not need to be unanimous, it only requires 10 jurors to believe she is not guilty. https://www.koin.com/news/brophy-trial/jury-instructions-nancy-brophy-murder-trial-05242022/ https://www.koin.com/news/brophy-trial/jury-instructions-nan...

TheCoelacanth 4y ago
Still makes a mockery of the concept of innocent until proven guilty and double jeopardy. 3/4 of the jury believes you're not guilty and the prosecutor still gets to take another shot at a conviction. It should be reversed. If the prosecutor can't get at least 10/12 guilty votes on the first try, you should be acquitted.