Jury Deliberations

Lazy:I have tried more than 200 jury trials over the last 20 years.  I have never tried a criminal case.  All of mine have been civil.  After the trial, we always tell the jury things that were not admissible during the trial.  Often times, the judge will ask "if you would have learned . . ."   On the civil side, there isn't a damn thing wrong with it and many times it can reinforce that some things should not be admissible.  I'm not calling you out here as I said I have never tried a criminal case but I have never ever heard that telling the jury after a trial has concluded some of the other evidence was unethical or a violation of the DRs.
 
Lazy,

To be fair to Judge Baird, the only stuff that was brought up after the fact in my trail was the 5 prior Felony DWIs and the fact that the defendant was on parole. Since neither of those facts were relevant to proving whether the guy was intoxicated that night, they were rightfully excluded and I don't think the prosecution even tried to get them admitted.

There were several objections to testimony that were discussed and ruled on and we did ask some questions about that after the trial just to try to understand what was going on, but mostly it was pretty straight forward.

I was impressed with my fellow jurors because they all took it very seriously. Probably half the jury had been on previous juries and didn't seem to let that experience effect how they viewed the evidence.

I see your point about excluded evidence, but I still don't see how it matters after the fact.
 
Lazy,

The jurors I spoke with after trials often had many questions about a trial, such as why a particular witness was or was not called, or why did they not get to hear about a defendant's criminal record until the punishment phase. Almost always, the defense attorney was there and sometimes the judge. Once the trial is over, these matters can be freely discussed with the jurors.
 
Lazy, I got you. It is unfortunate that it is not evident to every person sitting on a jury that they owe due diligence. But then again, I am not too impressed with the intelligence of our society as a whole. Our "peers" have me concerned.
 
Back when I sold construction equipment someone stole one of our trenchers and I was called at the trial to testify to the value of said trencher. I told the court that the trencher was worth 10K. Counsel for the defense or should I say dirtbag then proceded to "what if" me about the value of the trenche for about twenty minutes. I guess trying to get me to admit that the trencher was not worth as much as I said it was?

I guess I got a little snotty at the repeated attempts to get me to change my testimony because the Judge told me I needed to be more civil. My Grandfather being a Judge I knew that I had better say "yes sir" and do what I was told which I did.

But the trencher stayed valued at 10K in the court testimony.
 
smwhorn: I have only had bench trials in family law and CPS cases, so I have never had to go back and talk to a Civil Jury. Read the rule I guess, and make your own conclusions. There are certain thing that are obviously fair game to talk about (anything that came up in the trial). I guess I woudl always be careful though in commenting on excluded evidence. I think we have an ethical duty (as is obviously the intent of the rule) to maintain confidence and credibility in our court system and jury system, and if jurors, through our comments on admissibility of evidence, begin to doubt the evidence that is presented in court, and want to go outside of what is presented in the courtroom (something that is clearly not allowed), i.e. relying on their memory of conversations held with plaintiffs attorney after their last trial about how "X" type of evidence can't be admitted, but it is very common that is present, well.......I don't know about you, but I have a problem with that.

Also......200 trials in 20 years ? Good God man, what kind of work do you do ?

Sgt. Longhorn: Talkign about the prior convictions after the trial is totally okay, because that evidence came in the punsihment phase of the trial. All the prior character stuff, and prior criminal history is fair game (for the most part) in the punishment phase, so it is totally okay to talk about that. I didn't go to court today, but when I see Judge Baird tomorrow, I'll tell him you spoke highly of him. Judges always appreciate that.

Okay, I'll end this post from an interesting side note. 10 years ago I was picking my first Jury and in the Jury pool is a guy I have gone to church with for the last 6 years. We are friendly acquaintences, not much more , but he certainly knows me personally outside of the courtroom. Well the prosecutor for whatever reason didn't ask the usual "Does anyone here know LazyAttorney" question, and so it ends up he ends up on my jury. Trial lasts 3 days, closing arguments wind up Friday morning and the Jury gets the charge around 11:00 a.m. and the Jury deliberates for the next 6 hours straight. It is a Friday, now after 5:00 p.m., these poor jurors have already been away from their work for 4 days, and just want to get home (I imagine). So the judge sends bailiff to enquire if they are close to a verdict, and they send back they are in total disagreement and just cannot come to a unanimous consensus, and they are only growing further apart in that regard. So the judge brings them all back in them courtroom, and gives them the "Allen Charge" aka "the dynamite charge", which is basically a further admonishment that the State has expended a lot of time and energy into the case and its resources of using a courtroom, etc, etc., and that the jurors have a duty to do all they can to try and come to a unanimous decision (one way or the other) and they need to continue to try and seek that unanimous consensus.

So, the jurors with long tired faces skulk back into the jury room. 10 minutes later they come back with a unanimous verdict. Guilty.

I learned that day, that a hung jury at 5:00 pm on a Friday can be unhung in a hearbeat.

So I am kind of thinking in the back of my mind "I wonder if my church friend is fighting for my client, after all I felt I gave a pretty good defense and a stirring closing." Turns out my friend was one of the ones arguing guilty all day, and they were 4-2 guilty (misdemeanor trial) the whole day, and after the dynamite charge (see why it is called that ?) one of the 2 finally just said, you know what, he's probably guilty, I vote guilty (way to stay strong sister), and the final guy argued again for 10 minutes but finally said, whatever, guilty.

Sucks for my client. I actually had a pretty good idea that my client was probably guilty (assault family violence case, we argued self defense.....long story), but it was possible.

I still love the jury system and think it is by far the best model for a fair judicial system. It is not perfect, but when done right, it as close as it gets.

I am actually suprised we don't educate high schoolers more on the judicial system, and the differing standards of judgment we have in the system, and the importance of everyone participating and taking it as a privelege.

I swear, when I get the Jury list before Voir Dire begins, and I go through it, I just know that many of the minorities identified on the Jury list will not be there when the panel walks in, and like clockwork, I always have hispanics and African Americans missing. I don't say this in a judgmental way, just that I wish some of my clients (which the criminal justice system is disproportionately filled with minorities) had the opportunity to have a more balanced panel that truly reflects the society we live in.
 
I've been on two juries, one criminal and one civil. Very educational experiences in both cases.

In the criminal case the defendant was obviously guilty. Everyone in the jury room had no doubts except one person wanted to hear a critical piece of testimony again just to be sure. Fine. Yup, that's what he said all right. Guilty. What was interesting about the case came during post-trial discussions with the judge and attorneys. It turns out this is the guy's third conviction and third trip to the pen. He turned down 15 years in a plea offer, requested a trial, was found guilty, and the judge gave him 35 years. The judge said the reason he wanted a trial even though there was overwhelming evidence against him is because in the pen it's considered macho to have a trial and roll the dice no matter the odds. He didn't want to go back to the pen as a sell-out to the legal system. So he got an extra 20 years to reconsider that decision.

The civil case still gives me pause regarding the jury system. A prominent Austin couple closed on their new custom home before the builder finished the interior so they could move in before Christmas. The wife is ultra-picky about the house and a royal PITA for the builder who is having to redo stuff for her. Their realtor advises them not to close without the home being finished, but the couple offers to sign a statement saying the home is finished to their satisfaction and go through with the closing. By now the builder is broke, out of business, and never finishes the home. So they sue the successful Austin realtor and her prominent firm and accuse them of not doing their job and are suing for the money the couple had to spend to have the house finished.

We get to the jury room and take a quick vote to see where we all stand. 10-2 in favor of the plaintiff who the majority think got ripped off. One other guy and I are in the minority and are stunned at what the others are saying. We both proceed to explain that it was the plaintiffs who insisted on closing and signed the statement indicating that they were satisfied with the house. No one twisted their arm and the realtor advised them not to close. It was their poor decision and they need to be held accountable for being foolish. We both feel very strongly and eventually convince 9 of the 10 other jurors that the plaintiffs don't have a case. It's like they'd never heard of personal responsibility before we got to the jury room. We have one hold out who says she'll never change her mind. Fine. Civil trial. 11-1 it is. Had the jury selection gone slightly different and one or the other of us two had not been on the jury it could very easily have gone the other way. Fortunately it was only money at stake, but I'm sure similar things could happen in a criminal case. As a result I've decided that I never want to have a case in front of a jury for any reason. Too many idiots out there and there's always a chance they'll end up on my jury.
 
BTW, this is one of the most informative and engaging threads I've ever read here. Thanks a lot to everyone who has shared their views and experiences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top