5 ms·

> So even if you did nothing or said nothing at trial, you could not be convicted unless a jury of 12 people agreed unanimously that you are guilty They need t

> So even if you did nothing or said nothing at trial, you could not be convicted unless a jury of 12 people agreed unanimously that you are guilty They need to unanimously agree? So, one bad/corrupt juror could render anyone not guilty? I thought it would be majority or 3/4 majority (as they do for some bills in parliament). Unanimous seems pretty risky.

papa-whisky 4y ago
> So, one bad/corrupt juror could render anyone not guilty? No, they need to unanimously agree on either guilty or not guilty. A hung jury would result in a retrial.
Lazare 4y ago
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." That comes from Blackstone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio), and has been a bedrock principle of justice in English, English inspired justice systems, including the US. Historically unanimous juries were required in criminal trials through the English speaking world, and that's still true in the US, Canada, and NZ at least. For a period of time criminal trials at a state level could have majority verdicts in Louisiana and Oregon, but a recent Supreme Court case (Ramos v. Louisiana) declared this unconstituional, and federal cases (as here) always required unanimous verdicts. Somewhat oddly the UK has allowed majority verdicts in some criminal trials since 1967 (although I believe they're generally rare and somewhat controvesial), as does Australia. But they're very much the outliers. > Unanimous seems pretty risky. Generally speaking, allowing a pure majority has been seen as the risky option, given the stakes. (Much the same logic applies to the standard of proof required, which is "beyond reasonable doubt", otherwise phrased as there being no plausible reason to believe the accused might not be guilty. Obviously it would be much easier to achieve a guilty verdict if the standard was "preponderance of the evidence", but the goal of the system is justice, not guilty verdicts.) Some history here: https://corkerbinning.com/jury-unanimity-uk-us-verdict/ https://corkerbinning.com/jury-unanimity-uk-us-verdict/
DaveExeter 4y ago
>They need to unanimously agree? Hmm. How can I explain this. Human beings are social animals and go along with the crowd. There are not 12 independent decision makers on a jury. Most jurors are followers, and will be persuaded by another member of the jury. We decide what to think based upon what others think. >So, one bad/corrupt juror could render anyone not guilty? No, that's called a hung jury. Gov't can try again.
HWR_14 4y ago
> So, one bad/corrupt juror could render anyone not guilty? No. If all 12 agree, that's the verdict. Guilty or Not Guilty, whichever was voted by all 12. If they cannot agree, they are allowed time to argue and convince each other. Since they are agreeing on an interpretation of facts based on the same evidence provided, that can work. Maybe one person can hear a compelling argument from another juror. If all 12 still cannot agree and don't think more talking will resolve the issue (and the judge agrees!), they are a hung jury. At that point, the state can retry the case or let the defendant go. If all 12 have voted Not Guilty, the state is not allowed to retry the case - a verdict has been given.
- somedude895 4y ago
  Juries are picked randomly from the population, right? What are the dynamics within those juries like? How often do they not agree? Not knowing anything about it, I'd expect it to be extraordinarily unusual for 12 random people to agree unanimously on pretty much anything.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    Juries are picked randomly from a subset of the population. Obvious groups like non-citizens, felons, minors, the elderly, those who cannot speak English or people with disabilities that make it hard to serve (mental issues, blindness/deafness) are excluded. Individual cases also add more exclusions like knowing anyone involved or having biases like being a doctor on a medical malpractice case. Hung juries are fairly rare. In the federal courts, it's around 2.5%. A big part of this is weak cases that are likely to result in hung jury are not pursued before that point. This is the intended goal, to make it less likely innocent people have to go to trial. After all lawyers and putting your life on hold to go to court is expensive. The other driver is that what the jury is asked is to decide if something factually happened. The information that should drive that decision was presented to them in court after both lawyers and a judge vetted it. So whats left are multiple interpretations of the evidence and fuzzier things like "that witness didn't seem trustworthy". This isn't a question like "what's your opinion of [Politician X]".

papa-whisky 4y ago

> So, one bad/corrupt juror could render anyone not guilty? No, they need to unanimously agree on either guilty or not guilty. A hung jury would result in a retrial.

Lazare 4y ago

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." That comes from Blackstone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio), and has been a bedrock principle of justice in English, English inspired justice systems, including the US. Historically unanimous juries were required in criminal trials through the English speaking world, and that's still true in the US, Canada, and NZ at least. For a period of time criminal trials at a state level could have majority verdicts in Louisiana and Oregon, but a recent Supreme Court case (Ramos v. Louisiana) declared this unconstituional, and federal cases (as here) always required unanimous verdicts. Somewhat oddly the UK has allowed majority verdicts in some criminal trials since 1967 (although I believe they're generally rare and somewhat controvesial), as does Australia. But they're very much the outliers. > Unanimous seems pretty risky. Generally speaking, allowing a pure majority has been seen as the risky option, given the stakes. (Much the same logic applies to the standard of proof required, which is "beyond reasonable doubt", otherwise phrased as there being no plausible reason to believe the accused might not be guilty. Obviously it would be much easier to achieve a guilty verdict if the standard was "preponderance of the evidence", but the goal of the system is justice, not guilty verdicts.) Some history here: https://corkerbinning.com/jury-unanimity-uk-us-verdict/ https://corkerbinning.com/jury-unanimity-uk-us-verdict/

DaveExeter 4y ago

>They need to unanimously agree? Hmm. How can I explain this. Human beings are social animals and go along with the crowd. There are not 12 independent decision makers on a jury. Most jurors are followers, and will be persuaded by another member of the jury. We decide what to think based upon what others think. >So, one bad/corrupt juror could render anyone not guilty? No, that's called a hung jury. Gov't can try again.

HWR_14 4y ago

> So, one bad/corrupt juror could render anyone not guilty? No. If all 12 agree, that's the verdict. Guilty or Not Guilty, whichever was voted by all 12. If they cannot agree, they are allowed time to argue and convince each other. Since they are agreeing on an interpretation of facts based on the same evidence provided, that can work. Maybe one person can hear a compelling argument from another juror. If all 12 still cannot agree and don't think more talking will resolve the issue (and the judge agrees!), they are a hung jury. At that point, the state can retry the case or let the defendant go. If all 12 have voted Not Guilty, the state is not allowed to retry the case - a verdict has been given.

somedude895 4y ago
Juries are picked randomly from the population, right? What are the dynamics within those juries like? How often do they not agree? Not knowing anything about it, I'd expect it to be extraordinarily unusual for 12 random people to agree unanimously on pretty much anything.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  Juries are picked randomly from a subset of the population. Obvious groups like non-citizens, felons, minors, the elderly, those who cannot speak English or people with disabilities that make it hard to serve (mental issues, blindness/deafness) are excluded. Individual cases also add more exclusions like knowing anyone involved or having biases like being a doctor on a medical malpractice case. Hung juries are fairly rare. In the federal courts, it's around 2.5%. A big part of this is weak cases that are likely to result in hung jury are not pursued before that point. This is the intended goal, to make it less likely innocent people have to go to trial. After all lawyers and putting your life on hold to go to court is expensive. The other driver is that what the jury is asked is to decide if something factually happened. The information that should drive that decision was presented to them in court after both lawyers and a judge vetted it. So whats left are multiple interpretations of the evidence and fuzzier things like "that witness didn't seem trustworthy". This isn't a question like "what's your opinion of [Politician X]".