That's about going the other direction and believing someone should be acquitted even if the law says guilty. The holdout juror was allegedly ignorning evidence and saying they had doubts but still saying guilty anyway I guess because they felt killing the kids was too messed up or they didn't agree with law around lack of criminal responsibility. They swear an oath to follow the judges instructions on the law and it would be misconduct to deliberately violate that. That's all just going off the information available, I don't know perfectly what happen in deliberation obviously and I'm not injecting my opinion there.
The legal system in general should be very favored towards not falsly imprisonning people incorrently over acquitting guilty people incorrectly. In that sense it has to be clear about things like beyond a resonable doubt.
In this case there will probably be a new trial and I would guess the verdict will be not guilty by insanity. There will be some interesting appeals before then so we'll see what happens.
Ya I know I was just trying to sum up what the jurors have said happened and what the legal principles are. It's not all possible doubt but beyond a reasonable doubt is still a very high standard.
The juror apparently said things like "I don't think the prosecution or defense has proved their case" which should favor the defense and he couldn't give any evidence he was using for his opinion. Apparently was scrolling on his phone not paying attention to the others jurors at some points and did a weird reenacting with the exercise bands on a bottle. If he had his phone which he shouldn't during deliberations and was scrolling on social media he very likely saw outside information on the case which is also misconduct.
If he was being a responsible juror and just came to a different opinion on the evidence that would be totally fine obviously and we wouldn't be talking about it. The jury notes during the trial and all the stuff that come out from the jurors since is really not a good look for the holdout.
Ive been the black guy who is doing the right thing but made to look bad because i disagree on some opinion
This very much seems like the case where he disagrees and people cant accept that so they look for any way to tear him down so it makes their case stronger
If that's actually the case then I stand by his right to do that but some of the details of this jury have been weird and unprecedented. There have been lots of 11-1 hung juries and I've never seen anything like the jury note about reasonable doubt before. The fact that there are multiple other jurors saying similar things about him being arrogant or not having evidence and saying there was doubt but wanting to convict seems bizarre to me.
If it's true that he was scrolling on his phone during deliberations then it's very hard to take his side. I'd want to hear his perspective on things, I think his name will be released in two weeks after the end of the trial anyway unless the judge blocks it. If he gives an interview and says he came to his opinion after reviewing all the evidence and he understood and followed the law instructions then I would be fully supportive of his decision. If he says something like 'she was a psychotic woman who killed her kids and it doesn't matter the law says on responsibility she should be in jail' then that would be pretty messed up.
Imagine a different situation where it's a black guy on trial for murder. Maybe there's a tiny bit of doubt about the correct identification but they're are almost certain the guy did it. What if it's a racist jury and they say well there's some doubt they've proved that's the guy but he seems guilty and he's black so we wanna convict him. Surely you would have a problem with that legally and ethically.
One more thing about doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means moral certainty to the highest degree possible in matters of human affairs. In the jury room they're not talking about all possible things like the sun not coming up tomorrow or living in a simulation. They are spending the time talking about the case and and the most probable situations and understandings of the evidence, if interpreting the facts through deliberation easily brings up doubts then those are reasonable doubts. If he indeed said something like "I don't think the prosecution or defense has proved their case" or if he "admitted he had reasonable doubt but is still not going to say that guilty by reason of insanity" but would give no logic or evidence then it sounds like he did have reasonable doubt but would just not move from his stance anyway.
Jury nullification is specifically about finding someone innocent, that term doesn't mean both ways.
Yes jurors are free to form their opinion on any verdict for any reason and they don't have to say why. In principle it should be only based on the evidence and following the law instructions of the judge. That's why I said deliberately violating instructions and if they said they were doing that it could be a problem.
30
u/YourConsciousness 20h ago edited 16h ago
That's about going the other direction and believing someone should be acquitted even if the law says guilty. The holdout juror was allegedly ignorning evidence and saying they had doubts but still saying guilty anyway I guess because they felt killing the kids was too messed up or they didn't agree with law around lack of criminal responsibility. They swear an oath to follow the judges instructions on the law and it would be misconduct to deliberately violate that. That's all just going off the information available, I don't know perfectly what happen in deliberation obviously and I'm not injecting my opinion there.
The legal system in general should be very favored towards not falsly imprisonning people incorrently over acquitting guilty people incorrectly. In that sense it has to be clear about things like beyond a resonable doubt.
In this case there will probably be a new trial and I would guess the verdict will be not guilty by insanity. There will be some interesting appeals before then so we'll see what happens.