3 ms·

> 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 t

by 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]".

by HWR_14 4y ago

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]".