... you can use your own judgment.
(The image is "The Jury" (1861) by John Morgan, which I found at the Wikipedia article "Jury Nullification," a topic that's been on my mind. I like the detail to the characterization of the various jurors. Each one's a different type.)
Posts
70 comments:
Wait a minute.....is that guy texting??
Twelve people bored by ye fooking bee ess.
yes, yes he IS! But don't worry, he has REALLY SLOW connection speed
I never saw a Jury look anything like those dudes. They are usually wide eyed or intensely serious trying to guess what they are doing. After it's over will they act like real people for the first time. That looks like social club.
Headscarf!
Would you trust your future to a guy with a leer like 2nd on left?
Jurors should nullify the Manafort trial.
However, they should say their acquittal vote was based entirely on reasonable doubt.
I've been studying the early modern English legal system at work, and it was very practical. These gentlemen are a fine representation of what one could expect at trial, although this is mid Victorian, the stock is the same. From what I've learned, most petty juries were careful of their verdicts. They would often lessen the monetary amount of stolen goods in their verdicts so that the thief would not have a capital felony. Jury nullification was a thing back in the 1650s, and if the jury didn't do it, the judges often did. Then you add 'benefit of clergy', and for the girls 'plead the belly', and you get some interesting novels.
Rule of thumb: Juries always do the right thing for the most irrelevant reasons. They just decide to do the right thing for any peg to hang their hat on.That's because a Trial Lawyer was persuasive from Opening Statement to Closing Argument. And after that no amount of rigging by Judges and Appellate Courts can change what happened in that court that day. Which is why the Clintons always executed key witnesses before the trial.
Which one is supposed to be Lee J Cobb?
"That looks like social club."
They look like they were boozing in the deliberation room.
I should add that the early modern English Grand Juries seem to be far more discriminating than what we see today. A ham sandwich in 1670 would be perfectly safe in legal terms.
ALTHOUSE says: "..Each one's a different type."
Ha, ha, you must be trolling us Ms. A ....there's not a single Female in the jury...no way do I think that went by your sensitive Story-Detector!.....But I'll act dumb and protest mightily that there's NOT a single female (cis type)in this painting ...a pox on that painter and all his cultural contemporaries - a misogynist every one!
Twelve good men and true.
"When this phrase was coined, in the early 17th century, 'good' implied distinguished rank or valor."
....or is this your idea of a 'prediction' on a current trial?
:-)
Classical diversity.
is that guy texting
Yes. In prehistoric times, they did it with pen and paper.
Professora ... How technically and technologically intricate was jury selection and challenge at the time of painting and how knowledgeable was artist about it?
Ralph L.
The phrase as you note is, "Good men and true", but it does not have a societal factor. "Good" here does not denote status, only that they were understood to be known in the community and were of decent character. There were not enough of the "distinguished rank or valor" to even handle cases in the Assizes, let alone the Shire Quarter sessions. And the 'rank and valor' folk had no interest in handling them, unless involved. It was the locals who took care of the judiciary. Status be damned.
Todd Galle, I found that quote and thought it exaggerated, but I imagine "good" meant someone above the rabble--working men and even tradesmen likely couldn't take the required time off--but not necessarily a gentleman. Someone who cared about his reputation. All the men in the painting look reasonably prosperous.
Slightly OT, but hey, it's a cafe --
Another day, another Muslim outrage:
"At least 19 people have been killed in an Islamist militant attack on a village in north-east Nigeria, a survivor of the attack said.
Key points:
An unnamed aid worker says the death toll could be as high as 63
Survivor says he could not tell if fighters were Boko Haram or the Islamic State in West Africa
He says locals warned troops that militants were in area days before attack
The strike is the latest blow to Nigeria's efforts to defeat insurgencies by the Nigerian Islamist Boko Haram group and Islamic State in West Africa (ISWA)."
Judges all too often fail, more often outright refuse, to let juries know that its members have the absolute right to judge the facts AND the law itself.
I’m old enough to have been on that jury. I’m the guy in grey on the far right, second tier. IIRC the guy was innocent but we voted to convict because we knew he was guilty of something or another, or the police wouldn’t have arrested him. 😛
Meanwhile at the stable network:
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2018/08/18/get-out-cnns-berserk-philip-mudd-tries-kick-guest-show
Manafort Jury:
If conviction, media celebrates and ignores.
If acquittal, media doxxes and tries to discredit.
Who would have thought 3 million in ransom, would not have worked out.
Ralph L,
I think the word your looking for is 'gentleman'. A gentleman didn't work with his hands. He had rental income, or he was a lawyer, or a courtier. A "good man" was then I think, what we would consider today, as someone with an interest in their community. Also, from what I've read, the court cases were quickly done. An interesting thing was that, at least in Sussex, they had the petty jurors and the defendants line up at the bar and look each other eye to eye. Everyone knew who was who. No doxing required.
Thats,probably true, now one fellow did make the argument that Islamic state, was composed of many of the awakening, but the counter were many of those leaders were killed.
Were English juries selected from voters? If so, that would have been pretty restrictive until fairly late in the game.
it was just announced, that EVERY ONE* of the PoundMeToo girls are actually convicted pedophiles**; which tends to complicate the story
EVERY ONE* okay, well, At Least ONE
convicted pedophiles** okay, not convicted, just admitted
Dead white guys.
Racist. Misogynist. Privileged.
Next?
Unknown,
Re: Juries. Not from the voting lists. There weren't enough voters to handle anything legally in the country. Some 'rotten boroughs' had only 16 voters for the district. The English jury was a group of locals dealing with local issues. They often knew both parties to the case, and used that knowledge to evaluate the testimony. It was those who were unknown to the community who were most likely to get a capital sentence. Outsiders, with no local references, were expendable.
Aggie said...
Wait a minute.....is that guy texting??
That's Jeff Hawkins grandfather, with a very early developer version of the Palm Pilot.
The guy at the bottom right looks like he is talking on his cellphone. Probably getting instructions from his wife.
It is a smartphone brought in by time travel, explained as a very small daguerreotype album with a vital picture of the Duchess but the guy is having trouble finding the picture because there are so many pictures of his daughter's wedding and of his grandson's first birthday party, first step, etc. The others have heard it all before.
John Grisham has a good novel on jury nullification - The Runaway Jury. I'd love to see this jury refuse to convict. Imagine the struggle going on - people fearful; people finding courage or losing it; people saying they are not Trump supporters but what kind of case rests on a confessed liar and embezzler?
I suspect that some of those fellows are the spitting image of several of your commenters. I'm the worthy fighting off a nap, lower right.
This guy was as bad as the one they nabbed in dubai:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/19/exclusive-jeremy-corbyn-attended-conference-qatar-hamas-military/
It is a smartphone brought in by time travel
And where Is the cell tower?
My son served on a county grand jury for several weeks. This particular grand jury refused to indict a lot. And one day the One Monday morning the DA came in and confessed he was confused. His voice mailbox and email inbox were full about something that has happened locally and hit the internet- and people across the nation were outraged that a particular man had been arrested, then released, by the sheriff's office. DA wasn't internet savvy at the time. Unlike petit juries, grand juries are allowed to get their information from anywhere. Allowed to call their own witnesses also, though few do. DA's hate runaway grand juries.
The case was kids vandalizing an empty house, and the owner finding them and locking them in a closet in the house before calling the police. The parents were outraged! OTOH, most community members, including the classmates of the kids, thought he hadn't gone far enough- that a severe beating was appropriate. Jurors told the DA not to bother bringing the case to them. Next day the DA issued a press release dropping all charges against the homeowner.
Oh, on the not indicting a lot- the DAs conviction rate went way up while that grand jury was seated. Fewer cases were tried, but they were solid cases.
@Gospace " fewer cases were tried but they were solid cases. "
You mention a surely rare sort of case. Your son must live in an extremely low crime area. I find it very hard to believe a grand jury would affect prosecution in places where the real problem is cutting most offenders loose, in other words every city and most smaller places too.
I’m guessing none of them are wearing shorts.
@gspencer ...
What you wrote is totally new to me. Is it even mentioned in any civics teaching? Certainly not in any citizenship pamphlet for immigrants.
And if the judges are not fully informing the jurors that would be judicial usurpation ... No wonder due process is on the wane in USA polity
The balding guy, 5th from left, top row, is going to miss the spittoon and hock up a big glob of his chew onto the guy sending the text.
Big Mike said...
It is a smartphone brought in by time travel
And where Is the cell tower?
It's in a space warp allowing past and future to be adjacent over small areas - 22nd century technology, why you haven't heard about it. But I am more than up-to-date.
There's a problem with shadow banning, and de-platforming, namely that the act prevents you from telling anyone about it. It's cross between house arrest and being "disappeared" which were instruments of former tyrannies. I propose that congressmen maintain a web site on which their constituents can list themselves as shadow banned or twitter down checked or whatever and the reasons and whether it is still going on. People list themselves to get around privacy issues that might happen if we required the companies to list. The Congressmen maintain it because they won't be de-twittered for doing it. And by doing it we get an idea of how severe the problem is and whether it is affecting left and right equally. (I wonder. Hmmm.) Then this collects statistics so that a proper law can be drawn up for regulating (sorry) these services as utilities like the telephone companies. Digital Platform companies are like Bell telephone as it was; and like it they think they are Omni-Potent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFRc6nt4hbQ
"However, they should say their acquittal vote was based entirely on reasonable doubt."
A jury can acquit anyone they want, and they don't have to offer a reason.
"Judges all too often fail, more often outright refuse, to let juries know that its members have the absolute right to judge the facts AND the law itself."
This is because they don't want juries to know they have this power and discretion. Juries are often instructed that the judge will explain the law to them and they must render their verdict according to the law and what the evidence shows. Thus, juries may render verdicts they don't want to render and say "We had no choice."
They do.
Here is the Model Jury Charge used in New Jersey which explains the role of the Court and the role of the Jury. It's the Court's role to instruct the jury on the law, and jury's role to apply the facts, as deduced from the evidence presented, to the law (as described by the Judge).
If Jurors were empowered to make up any law they wanted, or ignore the law if they wished, in each case, then the country would truly not be a nation of laws.
Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations runs 28 hours in morse code at 40wpm. Only the first 24 hours fit on the bicycle mp3 player.
Late-start Monday.
Manic.
Alcee Hastings used to be my Congressman. I felt very represented.
"If Jurors were empowered to make up any law they wanted, or ignore the law if they wished, in each case, then the country would truly not be a nation of laws."
Jurors do not "make up any law they want," and they typically do not ignore the law. However, the state can and does create laws (or punishments) that are unjust, (or applies laws or punishments unjustly that might not be innately unjust). As a "jury of (the defendant's) peers," (i.e., members of the same community as he or she), if they feel the state is abusing a just law to persecute a defendant unfairly, or is prosecuting the defendant under a law they perceive to be innately unjust, they do have the right and the power to "nullify" the injustice by acquitting the defendant, even if the facts suggest the defendant did violate the law in question. This is a means by which the community may directly express itself and influence the laws of its community. It also serves as their means to protect themselves from the state's abuse of power.
In cases where juries convict a defendant even though the evidence clearly failed to prove his or guilt, or where the defendant's innocence of the charge is manifestly apparent, the judge has the right to vacate their conviction and acquit the defendant. The judge may not vacate an acquittal and impose a guilty verdict. This is because our justice system is supposed to protect the defendant against the abuse of power by the state, against which any individual is helpless.
Cases of jury nullification are rare--too rare, actually. In my experience on juries--quite a few, civil, criminal, and grand jury--the jurors take their responsibility to consider the facts and render a fair verdict very seriously. (I know this is not universally true, but I'd guess it is true in most cases.)
I’m guessing none of them are wearing shorts.
1861 is pretty late for knee britches, but an old guy like these might drag them out for special occasions.
On a 1991 Virginia jury, we had to impose sentence on those adults we convicted. VA had a minimum 5 yr sentence for selling $20 of crack, but we figured a third would be on parole. We went to 15 yrs for a knife robbery and theft of a taxi because the guy drove the car toward the driver/witness after tossing him out. I'm sure we encouraged other perps to plead out, and I hope the judge lowered some after the fact.
These were the Alexandria Hanging Juries that Michael K was so doubtful about.
I realized then that I can argue/bark like my father.
I'm with Cook on this issue. Juries have the right to ignore laws that they feel are unjust or just downright stupid as well, as decline to convict if they feel that the minimum mandatory sentence for some ridiculous law is unjust.
The recent California law proposing jail time for restaurant servers who "accidentally" hand out soda straws comes to mind. Of course being in California, I can come up with more examples of retarded laws.
My attitude probably explains why every jury that I have been chosen to sit, I get "excused" by one side or the other. My record is 100%
:-D
DBQ, we watched The People vs. OJ recently. At first, people went to great lengths to get on the jury. By the end they were fed up and worn out, probably why they were unanimous so fast.
My attitude probably explains why every jury that I have been chosen to sit, I get "excused" by one side or the other. My record is 100%
I think I have recounted my one jury experience. It was in Newport Beach where half the male population are contractors and real estate developers.
During Voir Dire the lawyer asked if any in the jury pool had ever been sued. Every hand went up.
The last time I was "kicked", I think it was because I humiliated the defense attorney and made everyone in the court room, including the Judge LOL.
She had a client who was being charged with some sort of domestic abuse offense. His wife/girlfriend wasn't going to press charges, so the DA was.
During the impaneling procedure and before they exercised their right to dismiss jurors......The attorney kept going on about how it was not required that the Defense actually present a defense but the Prosecution needed to prove its case. OK. After about the 6th or more time of her lecturing us about this, I was sick of her.
She said: So...if I didn't call any witnesses. Didn't put my client on the stand. Didn't present any evidence...and so on....."What would you have to think"? Trying to get us to think that she didn't have to do so...yada yada yada, yes we heard you the first 6 or more times. AND don't tell me what I have to think....bitch.
I blurted out....because she asked and I was totally annoyed with her and with being there in the first place..... I said: I would wonder what you were getting paid to do. He can sit there and do nothing without you. The whole court laughed and the judge Face Palmed to cover his laughter.
I was gone.....with a happy smile on my face. Now to drive the hour and half to get home by dinner. Three hours of total driving, plus sitting there for about 8 hours for this bull.
For me, it was a very interesting experience being on a jury. I wanted to get picked but didn't think I would be chosen because I'm an attorney. But I was picked along with another female attorney. We were in total agreement by the end of the trial that the plaintiff had no case. When the defense attorney called me after it was all over to discuss the trial, I told him he had had two attorneys arguing for him during the deliberations. He said he couldn't believe it when the plaintiff's attorney didn't use his preemptory challenges against us.
My favorite local story involved the shooting of a grizzly. The problem was that the Forest Service had brought in some problem bears into the local wilderness area. The problem was that it wasn’t publicized. One got taken out by a BNSF train. Kinda like all the eagles taken out by the wind turbines - not much you can do about it. But a local resident shot and killed a second one. Since the FS had been trying to hide, a bit, the addition of brown bears to the area, he claimed that he thought it was a black bear. As I understand it though, that legally didn’t matter. It’s an endangered creature, so knowing that you are killing an endangered creature doesn’t matter, rather apparently that he knew he was killing something. Could as well have been one of the local cattle. (For those who haven’t suffered through law school, we are talking different “intent” requirements). And it didn’t matter to the law that he shot in self defense. But it did matter to the jury that acquitted him. They all knew that if they had had a gun, and a grizzly attacking them, they would have done the same, shooting in self defense, regardless of the Endangered Species Act.
Not that far away, over in N ID, a more famous case was that of Randy Weaver, after the FBI murdered his wife with a baby in her arms, presumably mistaken for a deadly weapon, or some such (actually appears to have been the result of the sniper shooting through a door, and not as much a ROE issue). A federal agent had died, and he was maybe legally culpable, despite not pulling the trigger. But was acquitted of everything except the original charge that had precipitated the attempts to arrest him.
I was gone.....with a happy smile on my face
Good put down. The defense attorney was also relieved afterwards that you'd spoken out, but I doubt she was trying to provoke you.
On a 1991 Virginia jury, we had to impose sentence on those adults we convicted. VA had a minimum 5 yr sentence for selling $20 of crack, but we figured a third would be on parole. We went to 15 yrs for a knife robbery and theft of a taxi because the guy drove the car toward the driver/witness after tossing him out. I'm sure we encouraged other perps to plead out, and I hope the judge lowered some after the fact.
That jury figured and hoped too much. Figure the guy will get parole -- and then Virginia abolishes parole. Hope the judge will lower the sentence some (technically the judge cannot lower the sentence set by a jury, but can suspend some or all of it), but routinely judges in Northern Virginia took/take the attitude of imposing whatever the jury said because "the defendant wanted a jury trial and so he's getting a jury result."
But was acquitted of everything except the original charge that had precipitated the attempts to arrest him.
The jury wanted to indict the FBI sniper, Lon Horiuchi. I'll bet he stayed out of Idaho for years after.
My daughter, who is a left winger, bought her 5 acres up there, not far south of Ruby Ridge. I tried to get a rise out of her by telling her how close she was but it didn't faze her.
There are bears around there and I did give her a bigger gun, but she says a neighbor has big dogs that keep the bears away.
Post a Comment