Jury duty over the past 2+ weeks

[Islander]

Ezekiel and DD make a good point.

[Travis In Austin]

Did you talk to the attorneys after the trial? Did that provide you with any insights?

Travis

The jury was excused before everyone else (for our safety, perhaps?) so I didn't bump into any of them. I do, however, plan on writing them a short letter indicating my willingness to answer any questions they may have. I hope they take me up on it as it would be interesting to hear their perspective on things as well.

I am sure both sides will take you up on your kind offer. You can gain a lot of perspective from such an exchange. I usually send a thank you note to each and every juror in my trials and at least one or two will give me a call. I have also received several notes from jurors over the years such as yours and I have always called them.

We all got to know the Court Clerk fairly well as she took us to lunch everyday and escorted us through the building to the jury breakroom, outside for smoke breaks, etc and I spoke with her a bit afterwards. I asked her if she agreed with our verdict and she did but I also wanted to know something about the law that didn't get answered in a question that I directed our foreman to ask the judge.

The defendant was charged with first degree murder and also felony murder. The statute essentially states that murder occurs in the course of a robbery. While all of us believed that he murdered the victim in order to take his cocaine and money, we also felt that the prosecution did not prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the statute also states that a larceny occurs when a person's personal property or money is removed from them permanently. In this case the defendant at least took the victim's coat from his body (with intent to destroy the evidence) and most likely his pants and wallet too. Therefore, the defendant's actions did qualify for this portion of the statute. We got hung up on the wording of the law as it appeared that, in order to be guilty of this statute, the defendant's motivation must have been robbery with murder occuring in the process. Since we knew that he did not murder him for the coat, we could not come to a guilty verdict on this count.

So I asked the judge whether or not a larceny occurring in the course of a murder falls under the same umbrella as a murder in the course of a larceny. I was arguing this point on behalf of three other jurors and wanted us to get it right. The judge came back with an answer that essentially instructed us to read the statute. We therefore convicted him not on felony murder, but the lesser charge of murder, second degree. I learned from the Court Clerk, an attorney herself, that murder in the course of a larceny and larceny in the course of a murder would result in the same charge. I was a bit disappointed that I didn't stick to my guns and force the judge to give us a better answer, but at that point he was going away for life anyway and considered it to be a bit more of a moot point.

Well I think you reached the right decision from legal point of view (I obviously don't know the facts of the case like you do), but let me point out a couple of things I think you are already aware based on your question, but might be worded a little differently. A person commits felony murder if a death occurs during the course of the defendant commiting a felony. So the question is not really whether a "murder occurs in the course of a larceny" etc. This distinction is important because felony murder is a way to have 1st degree murder without intent or premeditation. As you know, if you did not find that the defendant had premeditated the murder by going to get the hammer, it would have be something less then Murder 1. The State also charged felony murder because they wanted a backup plan in case you did not find premeditation. They also may have charged it becasue they did not know what the defendant's agrument was going to be. For example, "Some other dude did it" (SODDI) which was apparently the defense in your case based on the news account, verses, "yes I hit him, but it was in self defense", or that I hit him but I was still under the influence of sudden passion (2nd degree or manslaugher). If the State does not know where the defendant is going because he did not confess or give a statement, they would charge both to cover their bases, or as someone mentioned, they sometimes overcharge to try and force a plea.

The question for purposes of felony murder, using your example, is whether a death occurs in the course of a larceny as opposed to a larceny occurs in the course of a death. If a death occurs in the course of a larceny, it is felony murder, regardless of what your intent was or whether or not your acted with premeditation. If a larceny occurs in the course of a death (and I beleive the only way this can happen is in the situation you have, where something is taken off the dead body) it is simply larceny, no felony murder, because the felony occured after the death. It does not mean there is no criminal responsibility for the death, the death would just be charged without regard to whether a felony was being committed.

So in your case, if there was no theft of drugs motive (robbery) or theft after the fact motive (larceny) the case would simply be charged as murder 1 and then you would have also been instructed if you did not find premeditation, or that the defendant was acting under passion, you could find a lesser included offense such as murder 2 or manlaughter.

I think you really thought it out well on the felony murder issue, if there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a robbery and a death occured as a result, you could not find felony murder because a theft occured afterwards. Felony murder does not work in both directions, despite what the clerk says, a death has to occur in the course of a felony.

The purpose of the rule is to make a person criminaly responsible for the death of someone else if they are engaged in felony conduct. So if you have two people who plan to rob a bank and during the course of that robbery one shoots and kills a teller, both are guilty of felony murder. If one robber accidently shoots the other robber, the other is guilty of felony murder, if the police shoot at a robber, miss and kill a teller, both are guilty of felony murder, and in most jurisdictions, if the police kill one of the two, the remaining is guilty of felony murder.

The State does not have to prove intent, they don't have to prove premeditation. The defendant is liable for the conduct of his partner in crime, regardless of whether or not he even has a gun. Where this comes into play the most is the "getaway driver." If someone gets killed in the bank, house, diamond store, 7-11, etc., the driver is guilty of felony murder.

[Daddy Dee]

Islander,

Thanks.

Mark,

Yeh. I think the history of capital punishment in the modern state of Israel, since these folks take the Hebrew scriptures seriously. In 1948 Israel inherited the code of law from the British mandate, which included capital punishment for several offenses. In 1954 Israel outlawed capital punishment, except in cases of genocide, crimes against humananity, treason in time of war, and such as that. Actually only one person has received the death penalty, and that was Adolf Eichmann in 1962. Some others have been convicted, but acquitted on appeal.

a pretty good take from wikipedia:

It is generally accepted that one of the reasons for Israel's rare use of the death penalty is Jewish religious law. However, there is some debate as to whether Jewish law forbids capital punishment. Biblical law explicitly mandates the death penalty for 36 offenses, from murder and rape to idolatry and desecration of the Sabbath. Still, Jewish scholars since the beginning of the common era have developed such restrictive rules to prevent execution of the innocent that the death penalty has become de facto illegal. Most modern Jewish religious leaders and scholars believe that the death penalty should remain unused.

"It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death."^[2]Moses Maimonides argued that executing a defendant on anything less than absolute certainty would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing burdens of proof, until we would be convicting merely "according to the judge's caprice." His concern was maintaining popular respect for law, and he saw errors of commission as much more threatening than errors of omission.^[3]

[Islander]

In Canada, the last criminal execution took place in 1962. In 1976, capital punishment was officially abolished, partly due to concerns over wrongful convictions. According to Amnesty International, this has been the result:

"Contrary to predictions by death penalty supporters, the homicide rate in Canada did not increase after abolition in 1976. In fact, the Canadian murder rate declined slightly the following year (from 2.8 per 100,000 to 2.7). Over the next 20 years the homicide rate fluctuated (between 2.2 and 2.8 per 100,000), but the general trend was clearly downwards. It reached a 30-year low in 1995 (1.98) -- the fourth consecutive year-to-year decrease and a full one-third lower than in the year before abolition. In 1998, the homicide rate dipped below 1.9 per 100,000, the lowest rate since the 1960s.

The overall conviction rate for first-degree murder doubled in the decade following abolition (from under 10% to approximately 20%), suggesting that Canadian juries are more willing to convict for murder now that they are not compelled to make life-and-death decisions."


It appears that more murderers are behind bars now, because of the abolishment of capital punishment. That should improve the level of safety for everyone.

[Travis In Austin]

Our justice system is one of my big bugaboo's. Notice how ludicrous the trials mentioned here were? The defendants were guilty from the git-go but our justice system gave them their day in court. That is all nice except that their day in court costs us all a ton of money which is a wee bit short these days. They look to squeeze every penny possible out of healthcare but conduct these wasteful trials routinely. Though I appreciate the 'innocent until proven guilty' stuff I think it could use a rethink. I feel it should be 'considered honest until shown to be dishonest'. That would include these peoples own attorneys. I think they should all have to take the stand in their own defense. If they are innocent and honest then the truth should only serve to show that. But it seems that these days attorneys work to minimize penalties for the guilty or defend people that they know are guilty. If they tell their attorney they did it, then the case should be over. If they lie to their own attorney then they take they stand and sustain that lie on their own. If they are innocent then none of this should be any problem. My $0.02.

Wow, that is some really scarey thinking, so just so many levels. I respect your right to say it, and your right to think it, but it is just so fundamentatly un-American it really surprises me to hear someone say something like that. I don't think an explanation as to why we would even think about adopting either one of your ideas would be of any benefit, however, I think they are easily answered by googling

Tulia, Texas

Mike Nifong

Better yet, go to www.innocenceproject.org/know/browse-profiles.php,

Fortunately the right to a jury trial and the right to counsel is constitutional, so neither a large group of intellectuals or a even a council of dunces can do away with either.

Travis

[Travis In Austin]

Why are you barred?

The principal reason is that it is the judge that instructs the jury on the law and the judge's directions are absolute. If a lawyer is present within a jury then it undermines and potentially clouds the ability of the judge to instruct the jury on the law. When the jury doors are closed what is said behind them is not open for investigation. Hence, a lawyer as juror could influence the jury into not following the judge's interpretation of the law.

Where do you practice?

Admitted to practice in Australia, UK, NZ, Ontario, South Africa and Hong Kong. Traditional common law jurisdictions.

In Texas, California and Nevada lawyers are selected all the time.

Certainly doesn't increase my confidence in a legal system when practising lawyers are permitted on the jury.

Why, do lawyers where you practice not take there oaths seriously? Jurrors are judges of the facts, not the law, which comes from the judge. Jurrors are told that. Every lawyer I know who has sat on a jury has told me that they were not the foreman, they refused the position even if asked, and that they refused to answer questions about things outside of the evidence or not containned inn the jury instructions.

A lawyer being on a jury can't change the testimony, the evidence. He or she can maybe argue better why facts fit a situation better, but if the State proves their case beyond a reasonable doubt do you think one person on a jury, whether they be a lawyer or a engineer or doctor can someone change the 11 others? I guess we are just more free thinking here, people are just not going to be influenced or pushed around simply because a one person on a jury says or thinks somehting, whether they are an attorney or not.

[Travis In Austin]

I am a resident of Iowa. There is a person here that was convicted of felony murder for speeding. The police officer clocking his speed from the air had a heart attack, and died (from either the heart attack or the subsequent plane crash). The law says the speeder was guilty of felony murder. As far as I know he will probably not get out of prison before he dies.

There is something missing from this example. The only way to have felony murder is for the defendant to be committing a felony when the death occurs. As far as I know, no state makes speeding a felony. So the speeder must have been doing something else. Stolen car? Felony drunk driving? Felony evading arrest? Simply speeding, a misdemeanor or infraction, and a death, regardless of how it is caused, will not get you to felony murder. Even if you have a passenger in your car who dies in an accident caused by speeding it is not felony murder. It might be vehicular manslaughter, etc, but no felony murder.

Travis

[dkp]

Islander,

I was not making a point about the purpose of the NT. As you mention, I actually was making a point about the revenge thing in our pre-Christian past.

In my view, the eye for an eye thing, is used improperly as a justification for capital punishment. IMO it's sort of a proof texting thing, to which I would reply,
"As I live, says the Lord, I do not desire the death of the wicked..." Ezekiel 33:11

just my $.02

Regarding ethics the NT does present a new standard (actually with greater accountability). It should also be remembered that the Christian canon included the OT and the NT. The "OT" was THE Bible to Jesus. If it was good enough for him....

Dee-I think you nailed it on the eye for eye, etc reply, thanks. In regards to capital punishment, I have been intrigued for some time now that God provided the role of the "Avenger" in the OT along with cities of refuge. I studied this briefly some time ago and always intended on getting into it further. As I understand it, the "Avenger" was most often the closest relative to the victim, although please do feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I would be interested to hear what you have to say on this.

[Daddy Dee]

Islander,

I was not making a point about the purpose of the NT. As you mention, I actually was making a point about the revenge thing in our pre-Christian past.

In my view, the eye for an eye thing, is used improperly as a justification for capital punishment. IMO it's sort of a proof texting thing, to which I would reply,
"As I live, says the Lord, I do not desire the death of the wicked..." Ezekiel 33:11

just my $.02

Regarding ethics the NT does present a new standard (actually with greater accountability). It should also be remembered that the Christian canon included the OT and the NT. The "OT" was THE Bible to Jesus. If it was good enough for him....

Dee-I think you nailed it on the eye for eye, etc reply, thanks. In regards to capital punishment, I have been intrigued for some time now that God provided the role of the "Avenger" in the OT along with cities of refuge. I studied this briefly some time ago and always intended on getting into it further. As I understand it, the "Avenger" was most often the closest relative to the victim, although please do feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I would be interested to hear what you have to say on this.

David, that sounds right to me. You have identified something that is indeed intriguing. Those are amazing contrasts.

I don't have a satisfactory explanation at all.

One thing that is interesting, and I don't think I've heard it discussed in the context of capital punishment. The very first crime was the murder of Abel. God's response to Cain was extraordinarily compassionate.

[Travis In Austin]

Except for our policy of preventative detention, correct? You or I, or anyone else can be detained and held incommunicato, and with no habeas rights if the President says so - I think. You could even be sent abroad for torture and summary execution.

Are you referring to the President's speech last week? What he described was so general, but I doubt he would be able to get anything through that would allow for the detention of a citizen, like you or I. If so it would be instantly struck down. Not even the Patriot Act allowed for the detention of citizens. But it is scarey that this stuff was even considered, or is even being considered.

Travis

[Travis In Austin]

I was referring to Military Commissions Act of 2006. Once the President declares you are an enemy combatant, your citizenship status is moot, because by definition you can be detained indefinitely or rendered or both. This was established under Mr. Bush, and has been essentially seconded by Mr. Obama with a little gingerbread detail changes of no significance. I hope I am wrong.

My understanding is that the MCA only applied to alliens and was was declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS about the middle of last year. All hope is not lost yet.

Travis

[Islander]

Americans should be embarrassed by that "enemy combatant" label. If a government states that it's at war and takes enemy prisoners, those prisoners are prisoners of war. That's obvious to anyone. To invent the term "enemy combatants" so the Geneva Convention can be side-stepped is really unworthy of a great nation like the US.

This kind of shabby trickery loses America respect around the world and is harmful to the country in the long term and maybe even in the short term.

[oscarsear]

Rather than digress into any conceptual areas of which I am obviously poorly equipped to discuss, I'll pose a simple question. Why do defense attorneys do their utmost to defend or minimize the crimes of people they know are guilty? That is the crux of my frustration. The system we have to defend the innocent seems to have warped into a system to get the guilty off scott free if at at possible.

[Jeff Matthews]

Lots of good posting here. Travis, good job on laying out the law.

As to this issue of military law and the law we cirtizen lawyers practice, I think it would be a better idea for us citizen lawyers to stay out trying to force military law to fit within our purview. Military law developed over centuries, just as ours did, and it took a separate course for probably very good reasons that are more difficult for us "laymen" to understand.

[Tom Adams]

Man-oh-man......you guys are slick.

There's no doubt that I can't hang with some of you.

I mean......a couple of you guys have managed to ever so slyly introduce religion AND politics into a thread about civic duty.

Niiiiiiiiice.

'Course it doesn't suprise me since some here (and you know who you) always seem to look for threads like this to drag out their soapboxes to pontificate about various injustices.

Oh and I've gotten the jury duty call several times, yet only served once. Not a major case, just simple robbery. The trial got started late and by the time we recessed for deliberation it was after 4:00pm. At 6:30 we hadn't reached a verdict due to 3 folks "just not being convinced that that nice looking young man would do something like stealing". Sheesh - whatever. Anyhow, the judge told us to go home and come back in the morning. We did and the first thing outta the mouth of one of the biggest hold-outs was, "Last night I went home and prayed & prayed and asked the Lord Jesus to show me the truth. I even called my two sisters and asked them to pray with me. And I now know that he is guilty. The other two hold-outs say, "Well....that's good enough for us." And with that, we had a unanamous decision of guilty. We were allowed to remain in the courtroom during sentencing and it was interesting to see the looks on the faces of the former hold-outs when the DA presented to the judge a "rap sheet" as long as your arm.

Tom

[oscarsear]

Our legal system was defined when indeed it was word versus word. Today there exists a battery of tools available which can support innocence or guilt. 2 hypotheticals involving a case or rape. In both instances the defendant told their attorney they were guilty.

In case 1 the attorney reports the guilty plea to the courts but notes that none of the evidenced collected in the case supports the guilty plea. The scientific evidence does not identify this person and so forth. So the case should proceed to trial.

In case 2 the attorney reports the guilty plea to the court and all the evidence collected does support that situation. There is no evidence to support any other plea but guilty. Case over.

The idea is not to immediately accept a guilty plea but to make certain through evidence that it is accurate. As it stands now defendants can rely upon their attorney to combat the system even if their attorneys know fully well that they have confessed and are indeed guilty of their crime. Other attorneys abuse the system to lessen the penalties their clients may be subject to. There is currently a case in my city of a pedophile who predated upon a family. He attacked the family murdering the parents and older siblings with a claw hammer. He abducted a young boy and girl whom he raped and tortured. He murdered the little boy. I do not say alleged because he has admitted his crimes. He videotaped some of these crimes and they have those tapes. His defense attorney told the prosecution not to request capital punishment or he would insist upon putting the little girl on the stand and subjecting her to "detailed cross examination". In other words they would plead not guilty and subject the courts to the expense and this little girl to the horrors of such testimony if they did not get assurances for the lessor penalty. That is the sad state of our current justice system.

I realize that our justice system is to protect the innocent. I believe that with modern crime science that those who profess innocence can prove their innocence. Those who are guilty should not be able to rely on the system to find ways out of their guilt. It is more than forcing someone to plead guilty and then executing the sentence. The guilty plea would require some objective corroboration for validation. Criminals should not view the justice system as something full of holes that a good attorney will be able to navigate for them to an innocent verdict.

Please pardon my naivete. But, in my view the system has been around for over 200 years and it merits some re-examination and modernization. I think it can be accurate, more efficient and till retain excellent protection for the innocent.

[oldenough]

Man-oh-man......you guys are slick.

There's no doubt that I can't hang with some of you.

I mean......a couple of you guys have managed to ever so slyly introduce religion AND politics into a thread about civic duty.

Niiiiiiiiice.

'Course it doesn't suprise me since some here (and you know who you) always seem to look for threads like this to drag out their soapboxes to pontificate about various injustices.

Oh and I've gotten the jury duty call several times, yet only served once. Not a major case, just simple robbery. The trial got started late and by the time we recessed for deliberation it was after 4:00pm. At 6:30 we hadn't reached a verdict due to 3 folks "just not being convinced that that nice looking young man would do something like stealing". Sheesh - whatever. Anyhow, the judge told us to go home and come back in the morning. We did and the first thing outta the mouth of one of the biggest hold-outs was, "Last night I went home and prayed & prayed and asked the Lord Jesus to show me the truth. I even called my two sisters and asked them to pray with me. And I now know that he is guilty. The other two hold-outs say, "Well....that's good enough for us." And with that, we had a unanamous decision of guilty. We were allowed to remain in the courtroom during sentencing and it was interesting to see the looks on the faces of the former hold-outs when the DA presented to the judge a "rap sheet" as long as your arm.

Tom

I'm right with you Tom...but I am equally impressed by the arguments made and the manner in which the debaters are conducting themselves. Havn't enjoyed a thread like this for a long time.

[Jeff Matthews]

I'm right with you Tom...but I am equally impressed by the arguments made and the manner in which the debaters are conducting themselves. Havn't enjoyed a thread like this for a long time.

These types of conversations are typical in the BS section. There is a little name-calling, but those there seem to handle it quite well. We tend to have thicker skin over there.

[Jeff Matthews]

I guess you could say that! []

[oscarsear]

I believe that with modern crime science that those who profess innocence can prove their innocence.

 

Would that that were true, there'd be no worries. 

Did you visit the innocence project? Browse any of the cases? Innocent people have been railroaded and languished in prisons for 30 years because they lacked the evidence to prove their innocence, or someone wouldn't test the evidence. They've lost their lives in electric chairs and gas chambers too. It would be ludicrous to post all the arguments about this, because at the end you'd still want "more." The only way you could come to understand the problem here is to actually take the time to look into it on your own. Not doing so, you'll just hang on to the position you have now.

These cases are also reasons why the system needs revamping. There are criminals abusing the system to get out and prosecutors possibly abusing it to obtain false convictions. The cases presented at the innocence project are generally older cases that did not employ the modern tools now proven and routinely available. They would not have been convicted if these same tests were done when they were originally tried. I do not know how many innocent people there are in our prison system. The Innocence Project has reversed 238 cases. Conversely, how many parties that were guilty of the charges against them have gone free or been released early? How many citizens have been victimized by a justice system failing to do its job? These innocent people were falsely convicted and the system should do better. Too many guilty go free and the system should do better. I am not saying make the system less accurate and make convictions easier to obtain. I am saying improve the system in all regards and make it run more efficiently. The system is outdated, wasteful and sloppy.