3 ms·

Jurors cannot be tried for their findings. A juror is free to infer that you are guilty when you plead the fifth, in the same way that a jury can let someone of

by hiatus 3y ago

Jurors cannot be tried for their findings. A juror is free to infer that you are guilty when you plead the fifth, in the same way that a jury can let someone off the hook even if they committed the crime (see jury nullification).

seadan83 3y ago
We might be splitting hairs a little bit. > "A juror is free to infer that you are guilty when you plead the fifth" Indeed, but they are _not_ supposed to do so only because you plead the fifth, but presumably because of other evidence. In a civil trial, AFAIK that is not the case, the jury can infer you are guilty because you did not testify in your defense.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Jurors cannot be tried for their findings. True, but not the issue here. > A juror is free to infer that you are guilty when you plead the fifth, No, they aren't, which is why: (1) If the trial judge decides before the case goes to the jury that a reasonable jury could not convict the defendant without making such a prohibited inference, the judge can dismiss the case, either in response to a defense motion or on their own, without even sending it to the jury, (2) If the trial judge makes the same determination after the jury returns a conviction, the judge can toss the verdict and and acquit the defendant (which they could not do with a jury acquittal), and (3) If an appeals court reaches the same decision after the trial judge has accepted the jury verdict and entered a conviction, the appeals court can reverse the conviction (which they could not do for an acquittal.) Criminal acquittals are a constitutional special case of jury freedom in the US, as a special protection against imposition of criminal punishment by the government. The freedom juries have to ignore the law and facts and acquit because they feel like it in criminal cases is neither symmetrically reflected in a similar freedom to criminally convict, nor manifest, in either direction, in civil cases.

by hiatus 3y ago

seadan83 3y ago

We might be splitting hairs a little bit. > "A juror is free to infer that you are guilty when you plead the fifth" Indeed, but they are _not_ supposed to do so only because you plead the fifth, but presumably because of other evidence. In a civil trial, AFAIK that is not the case, the jury can infer you are guilty because you did not testify in your defense.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Jurors cannot be tried for their findings. True, but not the issue here. > A juror is free to infer that you are guilty when you plead the fifth, No, they aren't, which is why: (1) If the trial judge decides before the case goes to the jury that a reasonable jury could not convict the defendant without making such a prohibited inference, the judge can dismiss the case, either in response to a defense motion or on their own, without even sending it to the jury, (2) If the trial judge makes the same determination after the jury returns a conviction, the judge can toss the verdict and and acquit the defendant (which they could not do with a jury acquittal), and (3) If an appeals court reaches the same decision after the trial judge has accepted the jury verdict and entered a conviction, the appeals court can reverse the conviction (which they could not do for an acquittal.) Criminal acquittals are a constitutional special case of jury freedom in the US, as a special protection against imposition of criminal punishment by the government. The freedom juries have to ignore the law and facts and acquit because they feel like it in criminal cases is neither symmetrically reflected in a similar freedom to criminally convict, nor manifest, in either direction, in civil cases.