|
Post by Kay on Apr 14, 2006 5:19:30 GMT -6
I know in my home state of Texas, because of my stance, I would be eliminated from the jury pool, in a death row case. However, some states don't call for a unanimous verdict, correct, only a majority?
In these states, are antis also prohibited from serving in these cases, and if not, is it the judge that has final discretion over the sentencing?
What about if you"re a court officer, and are anti, would you then be excused from the case?
Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Apr 14, 2006 5:48:11 GMT -6
Kay, I have all the answers to your questions, but want to make sure I'm accurate so I want to check them first. There are only a few states that permit a less than unanimous verdict, and I want to tell you exactly how it works there. I'll try to get to it tonight.....
But I can tell you that in ALL states, the jury has to be death qualified. So if you're a true anti and would never vote for the DP, under any circumstances, you'll never be allowed on any DP jury.
So that covers your last 2 questions. I'll get back to you with an answer for your first.
allison
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Apr 14, 2006 7:21:31 GMT -6
And it is proper to exclude antis. If someone called to jury service will not follow the law, they cannot be allowed to be on the jury.
Telling the court that you oppose the death penalty is saying, in essence, 'Before I have heard any of the evidence in this case, I have already decided that I will not even consider one aspect of the punishment that is a possible outcome of this case.' Someone who said during voir dire that they would want to "hang the ba$tard" before hearing the case would also be properly excluded.
A jury is there to represent the rest of us and have to be willing to set aside their own personal objections in order to fairly consider the law.
Some anti web sites advocate lying during voir dire so that they can accomplish jury nullification - no matter what the evidence, they will vote against the death penalty, thus accomplishing at least "one life saved."
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Apr 14, 2006 9:02:14 GMT -6
BUt if the jury member lies, would that not cause a re-trial or something? I feel if they advocate lying, how low will they go to save some slimeball's life...
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Apr 14, 2006 9:38:05 GMT -6
BUt if the jury member lies, would that not cause a re-trial or something? I feel if they advocate lying, how low will they go to save some slimeball's life... No. If they lie, then there's an anti-death penalty person on the jury. The result will be a sentence other than death. The only party that would logically want to appeal that is the prosecution, and they're not permitted to file appeals from verdicts (there may be some slim exceptions to that in some states, but none that I'm familiar with off the top of my head). So no, there would be no retrial. Allison
|
|
|
Post by onetwobomb on Apr 14, 2006 14:20:31 GMT -6
And it is proper to exclude antis. If someone called to jury service will not follow the law, they cannot be allowed to be on the jury. Telling the court that you oppose the death penalty is saying, in essence, 'Before I have heard any of the evidence in this case, I have already decided that I will not even consider one aspect of the punishment that is a possible outcome of this case.' Someone who said during voir dire that they would want to "hang the ba$tard" before hearing the case would also be properly excluded. A jury is there to represent the rest of us and have to be willing to set aside their own personal objections in order to fairly consider the law. Some anti web sites advocate lying during voir dire so that they can accomplish jury nullification - no matter what the evidence, they will vote against the death penalty, thus accomplishing at least "one life saved." Isn't that a felony if they lie under oath?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2006 16:42:07 GMT -6
Jurors are not examined under oath, they are not on trial or witnesses to a court proceeding. Some states have laws making a material misrepresentations by a potential jurors a crime, but that is pretty hard to prosecute. If the potential jury nullification comes to light before the jury panel is dismissed after jurors reached their final verdict, the state can seek a mistrial.
On the flip side of this argument, let's not forget that anti-DP people are not being singled out. People on the other extreme--the pro-DP people that believe anyone convicted for unlawfully taking a life should automatically get death no matter what--would likewise not be "death-qualified" jurors. If a person believes in "automatic death sentences," that is no better than an anti seeking jury nullification. The pro who believes in automatic death is also saying that he will not follow the law in evaluating whether the DP should be imposed and will be instead substituting his own views and beliefs for that of the law in imposing the ultimate sentence.
If the state requires a unanimous death verdict, then a single anti juror seeking to nullify the jury is much more problematic for prosecution than the problem presented to the defense by a single pro juror seeking automatic death. One hard core anti juror can stick to his guns and pretty much guarantee a life sentence by himself, but one hard core pro juror sticking to his guns cannot, by himself, guarantee death sentence.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Apr 15, 2006 8:33:47 GMT -6
Jurors are not examined under oath, they are not on trial or witnesses to a court proceeding. We are in Ohio. Also, before the jury duty period began I had to answer a list of questions from the court. At the place where I signed was a statement which said that I confrmed that, under threat of perjury, I was certifying that the answers were true.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Apr 15, 2006 8:37:49 GMT -6
BUt if the jury member lies, would that not cause a re-trial or something? Only if the murderer was found guilty. There was a recent jury trial where the murderer was found guilty but was protected from justice by the jury during the sentencing phase. The sentencing deliberations were relatively short. Someone on the jury said later that they had never considered the death penalty because of their religious convictions. So it was obvious that some of the jurors had lied during jury selection.
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Apr 15, 2006 9:53:27 GMT -6
BUt if the jury member lies, would that not cause a re-trial or something? Only if the murderer was found guilty. There was a recent jury trial where the murderer was found guilty but was protected from justice by the jury during the sentencing phase. The sentencing deliberations were relatively short. Someone on the jury said later that they had never considered the death penalty because of their religious convictions. So it was obvious that some of the jurors had lied during jury selection. Yes, as you said Donnie, it happens. But the only side that would logically want to appeal that decision is the state, and they're not allowed to. So the decision will stand and there would not be a retrial.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Apr 15, 2006 10:18:48 GMT -6
Thank you Allison and Little for the information. My questions were asked more out of curiosity than anything else.
Excluding antis from death row cases in all instances, whether or not the verdict must be unanimous, makes perfect sense, after all I know it's not probable, but you could end up with a jury that is 100% anti.
And no worries on me lying to pervert the course of the law. In fact, I have never been called for jury duty in my life, and I'm 50 as of last December. And besides, I'm a terrible poker player, and couldn't bluff my way out of a paper bag. If asked if I could sentence someone to death, I'd have to answer in all honesty, No, I'm not certain that I could.
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Apr 15, 2006 11:18:55 GMT -6
Just did a quick look, and I only saw that Alabama only requires 10 jurors to recommend death. The rest, as far as I can tell in a file I keep comparing the state's statues, require unanimity. Remember that in Alabama, the judge ultimately sets the sentence. The jury is only a recommending body.
|
|
|
Post by bigmama on Apr 15, 2006 14:16:06 GMT -6
And no worries on me lying to pervert the course of the law. That thought never even crossed my mind Kay!
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Apr 15, 2006 15:46:49 GMT -6
And no worries on me lying to pervert the course of the law. That thought never even crossed my mind Kay! Thank you Dear Lady, that post means a lot
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2006 21:30:14 GMT -6
BUt if the jury member lies, would that not cause a re-trial or something? I feel if they advocate lying, how low will they go to save some slimeball's life... If it can be shown that they lied, they can and have been tried for perjury. The defendant still gets the non-DP sentence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2006 21:36:36 GMT -6
Just did a quick look, and I only saw that Alabama only requires 10 jurors to recommend death. The rest, as far as I can tell in a file I keep comparing the state's statues, require unanimity. Remember that in Alabama, the judge ultimately sets the sentence. The jury is only a recommending body. I believe that Alabama law is invalid. I believe that the Supreme Court required that there must be a unanimous verdict of at least 12 jurors in all death penalty cases. Some states have a majority (2/3 or 3/4) decision to avoid hung juries, but it isn't very common. In all felony trials, other than death sentences, SCOTUS requires 6 jurors and in misdemeanor cases with a possible sentence of 6 months or more the requirement is 3 jurors.
|
|