TexasCHLforum.com

RoyGBiv wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:36 am

ELB wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:21 am

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:46 pm

I see what you are saying, but seems like a very dangerous and slippery slope. During voir dire the prospective jurors are often being asked to speculate...”Would you be able to? Could you consider?” Ah yes, could, woulda, should, except when I saw your cruddy facts Mr Prosecutor and they triggered my SJW instincts. The integrity of the jury system would be seriously at risk if jurors could be punished for their decisions by holding that they were contrary to their answers during voir dire. Massive 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment issues at play here IMO.

But having "cruddy facts" is not the situation here. If a prosecutor can't prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, that's a decision the jury is supposed to make. But in this case it appears to me the jurors were asked if the defendant was convicted, could they support the punishment the law provides. If a juror says yes in voir dire but then indicates in deliberation he lied, then the integrity of the justice system is most definitely compromised.

I cannot attribute motivation to the juror I was involved with. I just know it's bad.

• Judge: (paraphrasing) Are you able to consider the full range of possible sentences, which, in this case, includes the possibility of life in prison?

Every juror that was empaneled indicated an affirmative answer to that question. Then one of them changed their answer during sentence deliberation.

Too bad for the prosecution. The question is speculative. Yes I could. OK when I got in deliberations I realized I couldn’t. Or I DID consider the the full range and realized they were all outrageous after further thought. This is the concern of all capital case prosecutions. Maybe the juror just can’t bring themselves to order someone put to death. Maybe they thought they could and realized they couldn’t. If you are going to threaten a juror with sanctions for trying the facts or determining the penalty which is legally to be determined by the juror, then we might as well repeal the sixth amendment.

ELB wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:21 am

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:46 pm

I see what you are saying, but seems like a very dangerous and slippery slope. During voir dire the prospective jurors are often being asked to speculate...”Would you be able to? Could you consider?” Ah yes, could, woulda, should, except when I saw your cruddy facts Mr Prosecutor and they triggered my SJW instincts. The integrity of the jury system would be seriously at risk if jurors could be punished for their decisions by holding that they were contrary to their answers during voir dire. Massive 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment issues at play here IMO.

But having "cruddy facts" is not the situation here. If a prosecutor can't prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, that's a decision the jury is supposed to make. But in this case it appears to me the jurors were asked if the defendant was convicted, could they support the punishment the law provides. If a juror says yes in voir dire but then indicates in deliberation he lied, then the integrity of the justice system is most definitely compromised.

Indicates in deliberations that he lied? The voir dire questions are speculative. Could you convict if the facts are established? Yes. OK you hung the jury. Now the prosecutor is going to charge you with lying because of what you said in deliberations? The jury is to establish the facts. ALL the members in a criminal trial. SJW says he doesn’t think the facts were strong enough to warrant not giving the bad guy another chance. Questions in voir dire about how you are going to deliberate in a jury during can not be actionable. Maybe if you lied about a fact....are you a convicted robber? Are you a citizen? Otherwise prosecutors could intimidate jurors who don’t come to the “right” outcome. There is the whole principle of jury nullification in which the jury ignores clear evidence and acquits anyway. It is not particularly desirable, but long standing constitutional interpretation says it is not reversible in the case of an acquittal.

ELB wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:50 pm Likewise when I was called into voir dire for a DUI case, both prosecutor and defense attorney spent some time reading the law to us and asking if anyone would have trouble following it, basically. I would think a juror who answered yes at voir dire but no in the deliberations would be at some legal risk. If I were on the jury, especially as foreman, I would be tempted to report such juror to the judge. Sounds like the 11 of you did a good job of showing him or her a bit of common sense and integrity.


Question though: I cannot find a Penal Code citation for "aggravated" theft. There's levels of misdemeanor and felony theft based on the value of what was stolen, but I don't find the word "aggravated' in PC Chapter 31 Theft.

Can you explain a little more about the charges, what was stolen?

I see what you are saying, but seems like a very dangerous and slippery slope. During voir dire the prospective jurors are often being asked to speculate...”Would you be able to? Could you consider?” Ah yes, could, woulda, should, except when I saw your cruddy facts Mr Prosecutor and they triggered my SJW instincts. The integrity of the jury system would be seriously at risk if jurors could be punished for their decisions by holding that they were contrary to their answers during voir dire. Massive 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment issues at play here IMO.