I thought this guy was Guilty but glad he went free for my jury duty

[JI7]

it was a criminal trial so we needed to be in agreement for a verdict. without that it ended as mistrial with the guy going free.

i thought and still think he was guilty. afterwards i heard that he probably would have got 20 years and i thought of his young daughters that were there and seeing him and his family cry made me kind of happy when he went free.


this was the first time i served on a jury.

[SoCalDem]

1. depends..

even criminals have families who love them..but if the guy got off free and clear and does it again, how will you feel then?

every crime has a victim who goes without justice...only adding to their misery, when a guilty one goes free..

[JI7]

4. yes, i am conflicted

the case involved him making threats against a guy who was with his wife in 2000. it was a long time ago but throughout the years leading up to june 2007 he threatened him. this case involved a specific threat in june 2007. the nephew of the guy being threatened was there also and testified. i believed him and the guy being threatened. especially the nephew who was nervous and scared but who i believed was telling the truth.

but then i keep thinking about the accused and his young daughters. he was thanking some of the jurors and walked out of the court around the same time i did. i wanted to avoid him because i felt bad for thinking he was guilty. i could see he was starting to say thanks to me also but i just ran out fast towards the restroom hoping they would just think i really needed to go.


most of the jury did not think he was guilty , or at least think there was enough evidence so hopefully they are right.

[seriousstan]

19. If in the future he carries out his threat, you have yourself to blame.

I hope you can console yourself by thinking about the poor attacker's daughters and not the victim who came to you for justice. Next time, please find an excuse to stay off jury duty, seeing as how you can't follow the rules of jury duty....to make your own decision for logical reasons and defend them.

[DeSwiss]

20. WTF?

From what I read here, J17 thought that the person was guilty, but apparently others (not enough) on the jury did for him to be convicted. So how is J17 "to blame if in the future he carries out his threat?" It wasn't J17's fault that the person wasn't convicted, was it? Was J17 the whole jury???

And I've served on a jury before and never heard anyone of us being told that we were required "to make your own decision for logical reasons and defend them." I was told to reach my decision of guilt or innocence, "beyond a reasonable doubt."

- I just hope that if I'm ever indicted for something, you're not on the jury...

[Kingofalldems]

21. Try getting your facts straight, attack boy.

One attack after another with you.

[JI7]

24. i voted guilty but others did not feel the same way

it was only afterwards where i felt conflicted about the whole thing.

[EOTE]

17. Not every crime has a victim?

There are numerous laws on the books regarding sexual activity between consensual adults. Not to mention all the ridiculous drugs laws on the books. Some crimes are simply crimes because they tend to put the 'right' type of person in jail.

[gateley]

2. Interesting --

I was on the jury of a really odd trial once. Some people were adamant that the defendant had broken the law. And technically he had. But convicting him wouldn't have been JUST. It ended in mistrial, too.

We have to remember that we're there to see that justice is served.

[Extend a Hand]

3. I've read before that

jury nullification (where jurors refuse to convict a guilty person) is legal when jurors think the law is wrong. But I don't really know if that's true or not.

[JI7]

5. the thing was that we didn't know he would get over 20 years before

i think i would have said "not guilty" and at least one other woman said the same thing if we knew that would be the punishment. even if we really thought he was guilty of the crime.

i don't know. i think of the boy who testified and the daughters of the accused. the boy was scared and it was wrong what he went through. but i think of the little girls also and going without their father.

[SoCalDem]

6. The jury os only there to determine guilt.. the legislators determine the

penalties.. you are not supposed to know beforehand, or it would cloud your process..

[lonestarnot]

11. Jury nullification is not a problem for me.

[bluestateguy]

7. It is absolutely legal

But be aware that the judge will not say anything about this when he/she is instructing the jury.

In a democracy, a jury has the right to refuse to convict someone accused of breaking an absurd law.

I'd never vote to convict a non-violent drug possessor or someone on trial for soliciting a prostitute (so long as both parties are consenting adults).

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. Would you be upfront about that when being solicited for jury duty?

I think that makes a big difference to whether or not that attitude is justifiable.

[Mugu]

8. The juror's job is to find justice.

Regardless of what the judge instructs you, you should only follow your conscience.

Regards, Mugu

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Absolutely not. The juror's job is to uphold the law.

The voter's job is to make just laws.

But, in all but the most extreme cases, it's better for the law to be fairly, fully and accurately applied than for jurors to take the law into their own hands.

Consider the situations where someone has committed a crime against you, and the jurors arbitrarily decided not to convict because they didn't feel it was just? Or, even worse, if a jury decided to convict you even though you hadn't broken the law because they think it's just?

One needs to know that the law will protect one, and one needs to know that provided one doesn't break it one is safe from it. Jurors applying their own arbitrary moral standards instead of the law removes both those guarantees.

Jurors should, largely, ignore their own consciences and uphold the law, as they are sworn to do, or, failing that, tell the judge that they're not going to do so and be replaced by someone who will.

[Mugu]

13. I can appreciate your feelings and you make valid points for most situations.

But, when it comes time to judge somebody's actions I'm only interested in justice for all involved. I will not convict a person for a technical violation if I believe that they had no criminal intent.

I respect your opinion but, we're going to have to agree to disagree about this one.

Regards, Mugu

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. Would you tell the judge that before serving on a jury?

I think holding that view is far more acceptable if you make it clear beforehand (and hence probably get removed from the jury pool) than if you conceal it.

[Mugu]

16. I would probably try to rationalize

that if the judge is OK with lying to the jurors why should I hold myself to a higher standard. But, if asked directly I would have no choice other than answer truthfully.

Regards, Mugu

[bemildred]

12. Absolutely. That is why we have the jury system in the first place.

If you were just supposed to do what you are told, why would we have juries at all? They are a check on the power of the state, and intended to be exactly that.

[Preston120]

14. Jury Duty

The key word here is duty.  You decide if a person is guilty
or innocent on the basis of the evidence.  If you have a
reasonable doubt you go Not Guilty, if you have no doubt of
guilt, you vote guilty and if it results in a mistrial-so be
it.

[Dorian Gray]

18. What was the crime that he was accused of?

I also think I may have a problem with jurors voting against their beliefs just to get a consensus.... whether it's guilty or innocent.

[JI7]

23. criminal threats against a guy

with a gun. he was also convicted of having an illegal gun already which they mentioned.

the case involved one specific case last year in june. but they also said he had been making threats ever since 2000 when he found out his wife had sex with the guy he made the threats against.

i agree, a mistrial is better than anyone deciding to vote a certain way just so they can leave earlier or get a consensus.

[aikoaiko]

22. As a "finder of fact" you did your duty.