If you were on a jury....?

Question

What factors would make you convict a person of a crime?

specifically what type of evidence? Circumstantial like a similar out-fit or solid fact like a fingerprint, or both?

Answer 1

evidence that can be proven and shown. There must be more linking them to the crime than suspicion and someone else merely saying that the person is guilty.

I would have to see hard evidence proving that the person did it, after all, the court system is set up so that the individual should not have to prove their innocence, but the prosecution has to prove their guilt.

Answer 2

Prove to me that a crime has been committed.

Prove beyond a reasonable doubt (BRD) that the defendant did it.

That BRD thing is subjective. Your comfort level and mine would probably be different. Having said that, I could only address the real issues asked in your question after reviewing the evidence. Circumstantial evidence can normally shown to be factual, but any single piece can and probably should be discounted. You should give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and I do on the first pieces of circumstantial evidence but when you reach the 120Th piece it starts to get increasing difficult to give that benefit of a doubt. There is a point when circumstance stops being coincidence and starts being cause and affect. Again with that BRD thing.

Even air tight forensic evidence, I still want the crime proved, and the defendant shown to have the means, opportunity and some sort of motive. I know motive is not an element of the crime but tell that to the district attorney when I give a defendant a "get out of jail free" card. As a juror I would expect some things to be their, like your DNA on your wife, your fingerprint on your gun, and so on.

Bottom line, every case is different and that BRD thing could become a bigger issue in a capital case. I don't think it would be with me but I could see it happening with some other people.

I sat on the longest jury trial ever conducted in California history at the time of our verdict. Over 6 months, no kidding......... and 2 weeks of deliberation. It was very hard work.

Answer 3

Physical evidence establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Answer 4

I would confict them regardless they aren't in the postion of being on Trial for no reason believe me i work for attorneys and one is at Trial as we speak

Answer 5

Uh, evidence?

Answer 6

Depends on what the defendant and plaintiff say to persuade me.

Answer 7

i would let almost anyone go. we have too many b=llsh8t laws.

Answer 8

no reasonable doubt.

Answer 9

evidence////////////////////////////////////////////////////