How juries determine guilt--character profiling

[Hoi Polloi]

Whether you follow the letter or spirit of the law, how a jury will interpret that, etc are frequent topics of discussion here. That's why it was interesting to me to see how this jury thought, quoted from a blogger below. It was a rape case where a drug dealer/convicted serial rapist assaulted an addict who had a spotty background. The jury said they believed he had indeed raped her, but since she was there to buy drugs, they came back with a not guilty verdict. Apparently, the mentality was, "What did she think would happen to her doing those kinds of things in that part of town?" and they let him off completely for raping her.

The blogger focuses a lengthy entry on how justice is served when the victim and the perpetrator fit into nice, neat packages. When the lines start blurring (a man is assaulted by two women, a well-off woman is assaulted by her junior businessman, a homeless man is assaulted by a concert-goer, etc) then juries in particular are not going to give cookie-cutter justice, and the letter (or spirit) of the law might not be the standard they hold someone to at all. The blogger discusses how victims are informally pressured to lie about details which seem irrelevant, but would paint them as a more traditional cookie-cutter victim who had respectable credentials making them worthy of justice. Their credibility is then shot because they lied about their credentials and the case rarely sees justice anyway. I think there's a lot to learn about how the justice system works and how it affects shoot/no shoot, carry/don't carry, etc situations and how those who carry firearms are perceived. I vaguely recall a similar scenario I read about here (Ayoob?) with a guy shooting unarmed female neighbors.

I think if one were relying on the preciseness of the law to be on one's side, requesting a judge trial instead of a jury trial would probably be wise because when it comes to jury trials in particular (and increasingly with judges), who was on the right side of the law might not be an issue of importance to them when determining guilt or innocence. While you might be mainstream, or even conservative, when compared to others here, how the average jury is going to see most here is extreme. Add a gruff demeanor, any kind of anti-establishment tendencies, etc and they might think you were on the right side of the law but undeserving of justice for being on the "fringe" of society at large. Scary thought, really.

That’s why I was enormously proud of the prosecutor who went ahead with the case against a drug dealer accused of raping a female addict, even though I realized that the drug dealer being a known serial rapist with two prior rape convictions probably had a lot to do with that. In any event, the drug dealer decided to reject a plea bargain and take his chances with a jury, and the judge ruled that it would be too prejudicial to the defense for the jury to be told about the guy’s priors. However, the victim was a great witness, completely honest and forthright about the rape and her drug addiction. She was such a strong witness, I was actually surprised when the jury came back with a “not guilty” verdict. After the acquittal, a reporter told the jury foreperson about the drug dealer’s previous rape convictions and asked if having that information would have made a difference.

Without missing a beat, the jury foreperson replied that it wouldn’t have made a difference because the jury didn’t doubt that the victim was raped by the defendant; however, they were “concerned that she was there to buy drugs.” In other words, she didn’t deserve to see her rapist convicted because she’s a drug addict. Unfortunately this case isn’t an aberration. Even if a rape victim is able to convince cops, prosecutors, and a judge or jury that she was definitely raped, she may still be denied justice if she isn’t deemed a “worthy” victim or her rape didn’t happen according to the “real rape” script. Is it any wonder then that victims in those situations may feel they have to lie?

Above excerpt from SashaSaid.

[Ameer]

They say juries are more lenient to sympathetic defendants and harsher to unsympathetic defendants. it makes a twisted kind of sense they would have similar but reverse reaction to sympathetic or unsympathetic accusers.

Interesting. Thanks for posting this.

[Rex B]

Jury duty next monday, timely post.

Sad miscarriage of justice

[C-dub]

I think if one were relying on the preciseness of the law to be on one's side, requesting a judge trial instead of a jury trial would probably be wise because when it comes to jury trials in particular (and increasingly with judges), who was on the right side of the law might not be an issue of importance to them when determining guilt or innocence. While you might be mainstream, or even conservative, when compared to others here, how the average jury is going to see most here is extreme. Add a gruff demeanor, any kind of anti-establishment tendencies, etc and they might think you were on the right side of the law but undeserving of justice for being on the "fringe" of society at large. Scary thought, really.

I don't remember where I learned this, but you are correct. In general, ask for a judge if your innocence is based on the law, but ask for a jury if your innocence is based on facts.

[VMI77]

I think what this really boils down to is the simple fact that most people are dumb --as is objectively demonstrated by the Bell Curve distribution of IQ. When you add to that the often poor and uneven quality of education you may also get a distribution of people who are more ignorant than would be expected for their given level of intelligence. And then there are lots of other factors that contribute to these outcomes which may or may not be correlated with intelligence. So to me, it's a surprise that the system works as well as it does.

I also think part of the problem in this particular case is that the conduct being evaluated was outside the direct experience of the jurors (which may lead to wild speculation), and most people seem to have problems empathizing with people who aren't like them. I've only been on one jury in my life and I was pleasantly surprised by the jury deliberations, but we were evaluating a case that was well inside the normal experiences of those on the jury.

[The Annoyed Man]

I think if one were relying on the preciseness of the law to be on one's side, requesting a judge trial instead of a jury trial would probably be wise because when it comes to jury trials in particular (and increasingly with judges), who was on the right side of the law might not be an issue of importance to them when determining guilt or innocence. While you might be mainstream, or even conservative, when compared to others here, how the average jury is going to see most here is extreme. Add a gruff demeanor, any kind of anti-establishment tendencies, etc and they might think you were on the right side of the law but undeserving of justice for being on the "fringe" of society at large. Scary thought, really.

I don't remember where I learned this, but you are correct. In general, ask for a judge if your innocence is based on the law, but ask for a jury if your innocence is based on facts.

Not arguing against what you've said, but could you give an example please? The reason I ask is that I'm having trouble intellectually with differentiating between innocence based on the law, and innocence based on the facts. How can one be innocent based on the facts, but not based on the law, and visa-versa? If the facts prove guilt (the prosecution's burden), then the court must concur that guilt exists. If the facts are even remotely impeachable, enough so as to cast doubt on the prosecution's "proof," then the court must concur with the defense that innocence exists. But in either event, a defendant stands before the court because someone has proposed that a law or laws have been broken. So the law proposes a standard, and the facts prove or disprove whether that standard has been violated. At least, that is how my tiny little brain processes this. This is why I'm having trouble reconciling my understanding with your statement.

Obviously, the case that comes most recently to mind with an unsympathetic defendant, is the Casey Anthony acquittal just this morning in the face of murder charges. And she was acquitted by a jury, not a judge. That jury was able to put aside whatever personal estimates they had as to Ms. Anthony's strength of character or probability of guilt, and they arrived at an acquittal based on the defense's impeachment of the prosecution's proof (facts)..... (Personally, I think she's guilty as sin, but my opinion doesn't count, and we'll never truly know what happened to her poor little daughter.)

[surprise_i'm_armed]

Jury selection consultants help a defense lawyer to choose the best jurors for his client, i.e. those who are
likely to vote for acquittal. It's a fascinating process, but I can't recall all that I have read with regard to their
tactics.

*******************************************************************************************************************************************
For any trial that has been extensively publicized, we the public only get the "headlines" about the trial, and are somewhat
taken aback when the jury finds the defendant "not guilty", which is not the same as "innocent." The most current example
is the Casey Anthony trial in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. But the jury has sat in on the trial for weeks, hearing the best
case which the prosecution and the defense can make for their prospective sides. The jury has much more evidence than
the public will ever get from Nancy Grace.

Even though many of the public feel that Casey Anthony killed her darling daughter, the cause of death could not be definitively
determined since the body had been exposed to the elements and wildlife for about 6 months. If you don't have a cause of death,
this is a problem for the state. Casey Anthony's family is dysfunctional and they are all liars. When Casey was 7-8 months pregnant
and showing, she and her mother attended a wedding. When asked when the baby was due, Casey's mother lied and said that Casey
was not pregnant, just overweight from being too sedentary. Casey's dad appeared to have fidelity problems. The mother lied
about being the one to search for "chloroform", when it was proven that at the time of the Google searches she was at her job,
logged on to her work computer, updating clients' medical information.

So if the whole family consists of liars, who knows which person killed the little girl? Or did she really die by drowning, and the whole
family simply went into denial/coverup mode?

IMHO, I think Casey was the one to kill her. She may have beaten the rap this time, but I believe that we'll see her arrested for
some other crime in the future since she's such a dope.

SIA

********************************************************************************************************************************************************

[b322da]

From what I have read in the press, including post-trial statements by jurors in the Casey Anthony case, I suspect that we see here the workings of a great principle of our system of justice, and long may it live -- the difference between a criminal conviction requiring a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and one requiring a verdict based on just a preponderance of evidence, the lower test applicable to civil proceedings.

It also appears to again demonstrate that in the U.S.A. a criminal case is tried in court, rather than by the press, the Internet, talking heads, or the public.

We need a dramatic reminder of these principles now and then.

Elmo

[Texas Dan Mosby]

From what I have read in the press, including post-trial statements by jurors in the Casey Anthony case, I suspect that we see here the workings of a great principle of our system of justice, and long may it live -- the difference between a criminal conviction requiring a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and one requiring a verdict based on just a preponderance of evidence, the lower test applicable to civil proceedings.

It also appears to again demonstrate that in the U.S.A. a criminal case is tried in court, rather than by the press, the Internet, talking heads, or the public.

We need a dramatic reminder of these principles now and then.

Elmo

The issue at hand with jury trials is how the word "reasonable" is defined. What is "reasonable" to one, is not "reasonable" to another, and the larger the disparity between cultures, and cultures WITHIN cultures, the less precise the word "reasonable" becomes. Many in our society believe that prohibiting citizens from carrying arms is "reasonable", but IS it?

The jury system is flawed in that the term "beyond a reasonable doubt", used to determine guilt or innocence, is absolutely meaningless, due to the fact that there are 12 individuals who do NOT share the same concept and definition of what is "reasonable". When examining evidence and testimony, the "reasonable" conclusions developed by jurors based on the facts presented, may very well be different, and while there may be doubt, that doubt may not be "reasonable".

So while you may have NO doubt in your mind that you needed to use deadly force to defend yourself from a criminal, and the circumstantial evidence supports your belief, a jury may very well have doubt that you did, and pass a verdict of guilt. Despite the fact that their doubt may have been "unreasonable".

So while many laud the jury system, IMO, you aren't much better off, and sometimes worse, going with 12 strangers who do NOT share YOUR values, beliefs, culture, or your sense of "reason".

The Casey Anthony verdict is just the latest example. I followed the trial pretty closely, and based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, I found it unreasonable to conclude that Casey Anthony was anything but guilty.

[b322da]

So while you may have NO doubt in your mind that you needed to use deadly force to defend yourself from a criminal, and the circumstantial evidence supports your belief, a jury may very well have doubt that you did, and pass a verdict of guilt.
...
I followed the trial pretty closely, and based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, I found it unreasonable to conclude that Casey Anthony was anything but guilty.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first point I quote above, Dan. Hopefully this will give some people a little pause before they pull that trigger and then think about what they do or do not do after pulling the trigger. That is what it is all about. On the other side of the coin, we must not forget that to convict the shooter the 12 jurors must all be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was unreasonable. That is the makeweight in the other side of the scale of Justice.

With the greatest of respect, and understanding your concern, I cannot agree with your second point I quote, Dan. To me it demonstrates all the bad things which might happen if our law, Lord preserve us, were other than what it is.

Having had some experience in trying to define "reasonable," the best definition I can come up with is to follow the advice of Justice Potter Stewart, of the U. S. Supreme Court, when he once said, "I cannot define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

What do you propose? That after "following the trial 'pretty closely'" on TV, the radio, the press, the Internet, and as analyzed by the talking heads, we take a telephone vote as to guilt or innocence in the way we select an American Idol? -- never having been in the courtroom observing the demeanor and testimony of the witnesses, while following "pretty closely" all the hearsay and other inadmissible evidence not seen by the 12 who took an oath to follow the law as explained to them by the judge? This question is not rhetorical, by the way. Perhaps it might be debated by our forum members. I might well be shocked by the result of such a debate. If so, I will maintain to my dying breath that our nation is subject to the rule of law, not the rule of men.

A great philosopher once said words to this effect, "I would rather see ten guilty criminals acquitted than see one innocent person convicted." Me too. But I am afraid my number would be well more than ten.

Elmo

[Texas Dan Mosby]

What do you propose?

I would propose that we acknowledge the problems that exist in the jury selection process, and work to make improvements, so that when jurors have "reasonable doubts" about something, those doubts indeed ARE reasonable.

[The Mad Moderate]

How does everyone feel about the Anthony verdict? I think the jury made the right choice based on the evidence provided, and I think the reaction of the public some of which is disgusting shows just how much influence the media has over some peoples mind. I think there is a good chance she did do it but we cannot convict someone just because you want to even when there is a lack of evidence.