My understanding is that juries in America dont really deliberate on a verdict or a sentence. Thats up to the judge.
Instead, I believe they’re presented with all the facts and arguments, then determine based on that information whether or not the the prosecution’s claims hold up.
So its more of a “based on the facts you have been presented with, do you think the defendant did X”, rather than “should the defendant be punished for this crime?”
Most Trump supporters understand that he’s a criminal, but believe that his actions are in service of the greater good. So in a situation like this the distinction between “do the facts line up” and “should he be punished” is an important one.
There’s kinda like a second trial where they have friends and family of the defendant and victim come and tell you what s great guy he is or how much they miss the victim etc.
Then the judge lays out the range of possible punishments, including when parole might be available. We’re not allowed to consider when parole might be available though.
Then we all go into the deliberation room and duke it out. When we were done, we go back into the court room and hand the judge the punishment which he then read as sentencing.
The punishment range given us was anything from two to ninety nine years or life, so basically, “do what you want you crazy jurors”.
My understanding is that juries in America dont really deliberate on a verdict or a sentence. Thats up to the judge.
in a jury trial, the judge is there to manage the process and keep it fair. The prosecution presents their case, and the defense tries to poke holes and cause ‘reasonable doubt’.
yes, there are controls in place, like instructions on what may and may not be considered during deliberations, and yes, that restricts the jury’s decision significantly. For example, they’re not allowed to consider that Trump is a lying asshole who stole nuclear secrets when he left office, raped E Jean Carol or tried to lead an insurrection on jan 6 to overturn the government.
None of that really matters to this case. But the 12 jurors were ultimately the ones deciding that guilt or innocence or whatever. And they did so unanimously. The judge didn’t make the decision and tell them to come to a guilty verdict. (and the judge can only overrule such a verdict if it’s blatantly obvious they fucked it up. usually at that point they start over with a new trial and a new jury.)
A jury isn’t strictly bound by the facts. For example, a jury might feel that a law is unjust, and refuse to find someone guilty (called “jury nullification”). This is good and bad, such as by truly refusing to find guilt under an unjust law, but it has also been used by racist juries to let a white man accused of lynching a black man go free. And even without overwhelming evidence, a jury might find someone guilty, because “everyone knows they did it”, or something like that. Or because they did something and they can’t exactly prove that or another charge.
And then even after the jury returns their verdict, either the defense or prosecution may move to set aside the verdict. Those motions are rarely granted, but they happen.
I don’t think a judge can overturn a jury verdict on their own authority.
Of course, all of this varies by jurisdiction. Federal law and each state’s laws have their own quirks, and there are differences in civil and criminal law as well.
My understanding is that juries in America dont really deliberate on a verdict or a sentence. Thats up to the judge.
Instead, I believe they’re presented with all the facts and arguments, then determine based on that information whether or not the the prosecution’s claims hold up.
So its more of a “based on the facts you have been presented with, do you think the defendant did X”, rather than “should the defendant be punished for this crime?”
Most Trump supporters understand that he’s a criminal, but believe that his actions are in service of the greater good. So in a situation like this the distinction between “do the facts line up” and “should he be punished” is an important one.
I was on a jury in Texas in 2019 and we were tasked with both.
First part: Based on the facts you have been presented, do you think defendant did X?
If yes
Second part: You have determined that defendant did X. Now determine the punishment
That second part was by far the more difficult of the two
The judge gets to decide the sentence here.
The judge that Trump has insulted & threatened for the past 7 weeks.
I know. The original post sounded pretty universal so I was giving an example of how some states do it differently.
What was the process like of determining the punishment? I didn’t know that was a potential duty that juries could be tasked with.
There’s kinda like a second trial where they have friends and family of the defendant and victim come and tell you what s great guy he is or how much they miss the victim etc.
Then the judge lays out the range of possible punishments, including when parole might be available. We’re not allowed to consider when parole might be available though.
Then we all go into the deliberation room and duke it out. When we were done, we go back into the court room and hand the judge the punishment which he then read as sentencing.
The punishment range given us was anything from two to ninety nine years or life, so basically, “do what you want you crazy jurors”.
in a jury trial, the judge is there to manage the process and keep it fair. The prosecution presents their case, and the defense tries to poke holes and cause ‘reasonable doubt’.
yes, there are controls in place, like instructions on what may and may not be considered during deliberations, and yes, that restricts the jury’s decision significantly. For example, they’re not allowed to consider that Trump is a lying asshole who stole nuclear secrets when he left office, raped E Jean Carol or tried to lead an insurrection on jan 6 to overturn the government.
None of that really matters to this case. But the 12 jurors were ultimately the ones deciding that guilt or innocence or whatever. And they did so unanimously. The judge didn’t make the decision and tell them to come to a guilty verdict. (and the judge can only overrule such a verdict if it’s blatantly obvious they fucked it up. usually at that point they start over with a new trial and a new jury.)
Close, but jury instructions are very particular.
“This is the exact law and how it works. Did the defendant run afoul of this law?”
A competent judge and prosecutor forces the whole show to stay exactly in those bounds.
It’s… complicated, but sort of yes.
A jury isn’t strictly bound by the facts. For example, a jury might feel that a law is unjust, and refuse to find someone guilty (called “jury nullification”). This is good and bad, such as by truly refusing to find guilt under an unjust law, but it has also been used by racist juries to let a white man accused of lynching a black man go free. And even without overwhelming evidence, a jury might find someone guilty, because “everyone knows they did it”, or something like that. Or because they did something and they can’t exactly prove that or another charge.
And then even after the jury returns their verdict, either the defense or prosecution may move to set aside the verdict. Those motions are rarely granted, but they happen.
I don’t think a judge can overturn a jury verdict on their own authority.
Of course, all of this varies by jurisdiction. Federal law and each state’s laws have their own quirks, and there are differences in civil and criminal law as well.