To Be A Coward
-
@Horace said in To Be A Coward:
@LuFins-Dad said in To Be A Coward:
I used to think there were prosecutorial standards that prevented multiple charges for the same crime. Like you couldn’t charge manslaughter while also charging murder 1. You picked the most likely conviction charge and went with that. Ancillary charges were allowed of course. Firearm escalators, coverups, and such…
It's surprising how many legal questions are still open to question, without precedent. In this case, apparently the prosecutor petitioning the judge to drop the most serious charge was novel and without precedent. That leads me to believe the multiple charges thing is also rare. That must be why there is so little precedent around it.
Shortly before the judge’s ruling, lead prosecutor Dafna Yoran had indicated her office would drop the second-degree manslaughter charge if the jury could move on to consider the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide.
Defense attorney Thomas Kenniff objected to the motion, telling the judge he was unaware of any legal precedent for the prosecution’s proposal and called it “novel.”
It would seem to me that having multiple charges could lead to compromises that shouldn’t really happen when weighing individual charges.
@LuFins-Dad said in To Be A Coward:
@Horace said in To Be A Coward:
@LuFins-Dad said in To Be A Coward:
I used to think there were prosecutorial standards that prevented multiple charges for the same crime. Like you couldn’t charge manslaughter while also charging murder 1. You picked the most likely conviction charge and went with that. Ancillary charges were allowed of course. Firearm escalators, coverups, and such…
It's surprising how many legal questions are still open to question, without precedent. In this case, apparently the prosecutor petitioning the judge to drop the most serious charge was novel and without precedent. That leads me to believe the multiple charges thing is also rare. That must be why there is so little precedent around it.
Shortly before the judge’s ruling, lead prosecutor Dafna Yoran had indicated her office would drop the second-degree manslaughter charge if the jury could move on to consider the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide.
Defense attorney Thomas Kenniff objected to the motion, telling the judge he was unaware of any legal precedent for the prosecution’s proposal and called it “novel.”
It would seem to me that having multiple charges could lead to compromises that shouldn’t really happen when weighing individual charges.
Could see it both ways. Multiple charges could increase the severity of a jury's decision in some cases, and it could reduce severity in others. Unequivocally it will increase the prosecutor's conviction rate, overall. It will never turn a conviction on a single-charge, into a non-conviction for a double-charge.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in To Be A Coward:
It would seem to me that having multiple charges could lead to compromises that shouldn’t really happen when weighing individual charges.
Though I agree, in principle, I can see someone saying "Well, he didn't murder him (which is a deliberate act) but he caused his death by being negligent."
@George-K said in To Be A Coward:
@LuFins-Dad said in To Be A Coward:
It would seem to me that having multiple charges could lead to compromises that shouldn’t really happen when weighing individual charges.
Though I agree, in principle, I can see someone saying "Well, he didn't murder him (which is a deliberate act) but he caused his death by being negligent."
Then prosecute the negligent homicide charge. Offering up a second charge implies that they felt the first charge was more difficult to prove. Frankly, it’s an admission of innocence on the prosecution’s part.
-
-
It makes no sense for the jury to say they're deadlocked, but for them to not be deadlocked on the lesser charge. Maybe the jury room is of the room temperature IQ variety, but if it's not, they would have already deliberated on the lesser charge, after realizing they were deadlocked on the more severe one. A reasonable jury would not have gone to the judge to tell him they were deadlocked, unless they'd establish a deadlock on all potential charges. This dismissal is like the judge telling the jurors that he thinks they may be idiots, and if so, go back and do some more thinking.
-
It makes no sense for the jury to say they're deadlocked, but for them to not be deadlocked on the lesser charge. Maybe the jury room is of the room temperature IQ variety, but if it's not, they would have already deliberated on the lesser charge, after realizing they were deadlocked on the more severe one. A reasonable jury would not have gone to the judge to tell him they were deadlocked, unless they'd establish a deadlock on all potential charges. This dismissal is like the judge telling the jurors that he thinks they may be idiots, and if so, go back and do some more thinking.
@Horace said in To Be A Coward:
It makes no sense for the jury to say they're deadlocked, but for them to not be deadlocked on the lesser charge.
It's all dependent on the jury instructions given by the judge. In the Karen Read case, the instructions said, "Don't return a verdict until you agree on ALL three counts." They were deadlocked on #2, but according to a couple of jurors, they were unanimous on #1 and #3 - not guilty. Since they followed the judge's instructions, they returned no verdict, and the mistrial was declared.
I believe the jury instructions in this case were similarly confusing.
ETA: Some say that jury instructions are the most important part of a trial - what the jury can consider, what to ignore, and how each charge is handled is a huge deal, and the cause of lots of appeals.
-
@Horace said in To Be A Coward:
It makes no sense for the jury to say they're deadlocked, but for them to not be deadlocked on the lesser charge.
It's all dependent on the jury instructions given by the judge. In the Karen Read case, the instructions said, "Don't return a verdict until you agree on ALL three counts." They were deadlocked on #2, but according to a couple of jurors, they were unanimous on #1 and #3 - not guilty. Since they followed the judge's instructions, they returned no verdict, and the mistrial was declared.
I believe the jury instructions in this case were similarly confusing.
ETA: Some say that jury instructions are the most important part of a trial - what the jury can consider, what to ignore, and how each charge is handled is a huge deal, and the cause of lots of appeals.
@George-K said in To Be A Coward:
@Horace said in To Be A Coward:
It makes no sense for the jury to say they're deadlocked, but for them to not be deadlocked on the lesser charge.
It's all dependent on the jury instructions given by the judge. In the Karen Read case, the instructions said, "Don't return a verdict until you agree on ALL three counts." They were deadlocked on #2, but according to a couple of jurors, they were unanimous on #1 and #3 - not guilty. Since they followed the judge's instructions, they returned no verdict, and the mistrial was declared.
I believe the jury instructions in this case were similarly confusing.
In this case, the judge told the jury that they could not convict on both charges. So, the opposite of the instructions for the Reade case. I took that to mean that they only had to return one decision, for one charge of their choosing. But if they still have to return decisions for both charges, that's a new wrinkle.
-
It doesn't make much sense for the jury to be bound to return decisions on both counts, but be unable to return two convictions. Would they have been bound to return an "innocent" verdict on the lesser charge, if they wanted to convict on the more severe one? That would be a perversion of the system. I know things might be perverse, but the only way the multiple charge thing makes sense, is for the jury to be obligated to return only one decision on a charge of their choosing.
-
So to be found guilty of the lesser charge, they needed two unanimous decisions, the first not guilty on the severe charge, and the second guilty on the less severe. That would depend on a jury that had very specific conclusions. Those instructions are idiotic, since the spirit of the law can be carried out by asking the jury to return a decision on at most one of the charges, of their choosing. The jury will then pick the most severe charge they agree on.
-
Sorry, but it’s bullshit and removes much of the burden of proving guilt from the prosecution. What they are essentially saying is “we know he did something bad. You decide what he did.
-
The instructions are definitely designed to maximize the chances of a guilty verdict on count 1. That's the judge's decision, and a very interesting one. I really hope this shit gets challenged and that it goes to SCOTUS. Judges shouldn't be putting their fingers on the scale for a certain verdict. If the prosecutor wants to present two different, mutually exclusive charges, then the jury can decide which they like better.
-
The instructions are definitely designed to maximize the chances of a guilty verdict on count 1. That's the judge's decision, and a very interesting one. I really hope this shit gets challenged and that it goes to SCOTUS. Judges shouldn't be putting their fingers on the scale for a certain verdict. If the prosecutor wants to present two different, mutually exclusive charges, then the jury can decide which they like better.
@Horace said in To Be A Coward:
Judges shouldn't be putting their fingers on the scale for a certain verdict.
I agree, but you haven't watched enough trials.
Who can be called as witnesses, what evidence is excluded, and a ton of pre-trial hearings clearly can prejudice a case one way or another.
For example, again, in the Read case.
I've commented on the injuries on the cop's arm. The Commonwealth is alleging this is due to being struck by a Lexus SUV traveling 25 mph - in reverse. The defense is claiming these are bite marks from a large dog.
There is going to be a hearing whether to allow an ER doc to testify that these injuries were caused by a dog. This doc has written papers on dog bite injuries. She's seen hundreds of them. But the state wants to exclude her testimony, even though the judge allowed it during trial #1.
In the first trial, the judge did not allow interview notes by news media with the accused. Yesterday, same judge is allowing it.
The judge always has a thumb on the scales. Always.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@Jolly said in To Be A Coward:
Bluntly?
It stinks.
Amen. It’s hedging the prosecution’s bet which is at least ethically questionable. If I were a juror he’d walk. We can’t have citizens afraid to act for fear of persecution based on social fads. They guy was a menace to the general public present and his death was a direct result of his own actions.
-
@Jolly said in To Be A Coward:
Bluntly?
It stinks.
Amen. It’s hedging the prosecution’s bet which is at least ethically questionable. If I were a juror he’d walk. We can’t have citizens afraid to act for fear of persecution based on social fads. They guy was a menace to the general public present and his death was a direct result of his own actions.
-
@Horace said in To Be A Coward:
Judges shouldn't be putting their fingers on the scale for a certain verdict.
I agree, but you haven't watched enough trials.
Who can be called as witnesses, what evidence is excluded, and a ton of pre-trial hearings clearly can prejudice a case one way or another.
For example, again, in the Read case.
I've commented on the injuries on the cop's arm. The Commonwealth is alleging this is due to being struck by a Lexus SUV traveling 25 mph - in reverse. The defense is claiming these are bite marks from a large dog.
There is going to be a hearing whether to allow an ER doc to testify that these injuries were caused by a dog. This doc has written papers on dog bite injuries. She's seen hundreds of them. But the state wants to exclude her testimony, even though the judge allowed it during trial #1.
In the first trial, the judge did not allow interview notes by news media with the accused. Yesterday, same judge is allowing it.
The judge always has a thumb on the scales. Always.
@George-K said in To Be A Coward:
@Horace said in To Be A Coward:
Judges shouldn't be putting their fingers on the scale for a certain verdict.
I agree, but you haven't watched enough trials.
Who can be called as witnesses, what evidence is excluded, and a ton of pre-trial hearings clearly can prejudice a case one way or another.
For example, again, in the Read case.
I've commented on the injuries on the cop's arm. The Commonwealth is alleging this is due to being struck by a Lexus SUV traveling 25 mph - in reverse. The defense is claiming these are bite marks from a large dog.
There is going to be a hearing whether to allow an ER doc to testify that these injuries were caused by a dog. This doc has written papers on dog bite injuries. She's seen hundreds of them. But the state wants to exclude her testimony, even though the judge allowed it during trial #1.
In the first trial, the judge did not allow interview notes by news media with the accused. Yesterday, same judge is allowing it.
The judge always has a thumb on the scales. Always.
Right but this jury instruction is unequivocally motivated to maximize the chance of a certain verdict. I understand anything that goes on in the courtroom can be framed as advantageous for a certain side, but it can also be framed as a pursuit of truth. This instruction can't be framed that way.
