The jury considering the so-called "loud music trial" convicted Michael Dunn of the four lesser charges but couldn't reach a unanimous decision on the first degree murder charge. He will likely spend the rest of his life in prison since the charges he was convicted on are serious and his time will be served consecutively. 

But what I'm writing about is something one of the legal eagles said in commentary, and it's something I've heard several times before in major high-stakes trials, which goes "A different jury might have reached a different verdict,"

Think about that for a minute. 

If different juries can reach different verdicts based on identical facts, testimony, and legal arguments/instructions,...

...where is the justice? What is its relation to truth?

Views: 251

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

How could a jury full of religious folk ever be expected to make a scientific decision? We already know evidence doesn't matter to their truths.

True, but my problem is with the idea of...

different juries = different verdicts

One man's justice, is another's travesty.

My point isn't that one person may view a verdict as good while another may view it as bad but that verdicts appear to amount to little more than chance. Yet we persist in believing we have a justice system.

A large  portion does depend on whether you can afford justice in the form of really expensive lawyers or not.

It seems to me that when it comes to the notion that "another jury might have reached a different verdict," that applies whether you have the world's worst or the world's best attorney. Either way it's a crap shoot.

I'm not concerned with attorneys but with juries.

I don't think it's far fetched. We have folks here who believe that recidivism  is a given and one man's addiction is another man's force of shear will. Why not a different jury may have seen it different? We all view everything through our own personal experiences and we color it all in the hues we see and choose. Despite the jury's instructions to stick to the facts of a case we humans always find a way to inject our prejudices, likes, and dislikes into a verdict.

We don't have a justice system--we have a judicial system.  In my opinion, very little justice comes out of the system.  

Most prosecutors think their rear ends don't stink.  The prosecutor on the case you mention is going to retry the man on the charge the jury hung on.  No matter that he will spend the rest of his life in prison on the other convictions.

@Ron Humphrey:

"We don't have a justice system--we have a judicial system.  In my opinion, very little justice comes out of the system."

Short and to the point.

We don't have a justice system--we have a judicial system.  In my opinion, very little justice comes out of the system.  

Which raises the question: what's the point? Do we have a judicial system just to have one? I mean, considering the unreliability built into it (two different juries can reach contradictory verdicts).

If the prosecution is going to use forensic evidence then the defence should be entitled to ask if the jury understands the basics of forensic science. Watching CSI the night before trial does not count. I think many are baffled when it comes to understanding DNA and other scientific based technologies. The jury are more likely to agree with the lawyer best able to persuade them as to what the evidence means. I suspect many are persuaded by pre-trial media speculation as much as they are by peer pressure in the jury room where a dominant juror will led them towards a decision.

I am sure many jurors, especially in high profile cases are overawed by the occasion and will reach their decision based on how they “feel” others are thinking. Even if some doubt the evidence they made decide that while they have not fully understood the forensics, it would be better to agree with their peers and convict. It is more likely that my eleven peers are correct and I am wrong?

Present the same evidence the following day to a new jury and this time that one person may be confident and knowledgeable and persuade some of the eleven to change their minds and reach a different verdict as in the film “12 Angry Men”.

A jury that is easily persuaded by a few dominant members means the defendant is only being judged by a jury of one or two people. So it could be a case of getting hung after a fair trial.

The criminal justice system in America is nowhere near perfect by any stretch of the imagination. As to how different juries can reach different decisions when confronted with the same evidence in a case, it only demonstrates that, as humans, we interpret data differently. Throw in personal prejudice and a lack of objectivity and it is not surprising that different outcomes will result. Jury selection is a crap shoot at best.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service