Is a Jury simply 12 persons who decide who has the best lawyer?

Answer 1

If you are just trolling for a "yes" or "no", my answer is “NO”.

If you want more, I have included a personal experience for you to read through. It is lengthy but when you are asked to kill a man, most issues become more complex.

I spent just over six (6) months of my life sitting on a First Degree with Special Circumstances Murder case. At the time we submitted our verdict it was the longest jury trial in California history. During that time I came to some conclusions.

A jury evaluates the evidence put before them. As a juror I cannot investigate, conduct experiments or do any research. So if an attorney can get the facts introduced into evidence, they are a good attorney. There are all sorts of maneuvers and gyrations performed outside of the juries hearing. Some of those maneuvers establish what a jury will be allowed to hear and see about the case. The better attorney is the one who can successfully argue to include their evidence while excluding their opponents. And make no mistake they are opponents. Our judicial system is an adversarial system. This is the primary reason juries sometimes return verdicts that the rest of us don’t understand. The general public watches a defendant “tried” in the press, a jury doesn’t have that luxury. The rules of evidence are different in Superior Court than they are in news media.

The only reason attorneys are allowed in a court room at all is so the jury can put witnesses answers into some kind of context. For example, if the answer is "YES", no one can glean any information from that answer unless they know that the question was "ARE YOU STUPID?". Then and only then can you assign meaning to the answer.

A jury represents the community. It is not a rubber stamp for the prosecutor. Even though, in a similar way, the prosecutor also represents the community.

A jury can select what testimony it believes, disbelieves, and it can go so far as to believe part of a witnesses testimony and not believe the rest. As a juror you may also assign different values to testimony. We heard from two doctors. One worked with the victim for hours, the other only minutes. The longer duration doctor’s testimony weighed more heavily in my verdict than did the short duration doctor.

Depending on the jury you sit on (criminal or civil) you must be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" or convinced by the "preponderance of the evidence" respectively. Beyond a reasonable doubt sounds simple but if you have never searched your soul, you don't know what it means. To me it means putting someone in a death chamber and being able to sleep with that decision. It doesn’t mean he probably did it, he surely did, or he almost certainly did it. The preponderance of the evidence is simply more than half. At least that is my feeling at the moment. I have never sat through a civil trial so I reserve the right to change my mind on this issue. The Constitution states 'no man shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process'. Beyond a reasonable doubt applies to life and liberty as well as property in the form of a fine. The preponderance of the evidence applies to civil law, i.e. a monetary settlement.

I jury doesn't decide guilt or innocence. Their verdict is either "guilty" or "not guilty", Guilty is obvious, the prosecutor has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime he or she has been charged with. Not guilty is not a finding of innocent, it is a finding of "not guilty". It means the prosecutor has failed to prove beyond a reasonable that the defendant is guilty. Some places and some people can have a finding of “factually innocent”, but I’m certain exactly how that works. I would assume the defendant proved beyond a reasonably doubt that someone else did it. Keep in mind though, that is my assumption.

The jury is responsible for sorting through everything, discarding the B.S. from both sides and doing what is right with the remainder.

Juries are the finder of fact. They and they alone determine what is real and what isn't. In most cases the verdict is the final word on the issue especially in criminal matters. A trial judge has the authority to direct a verdict, but it almost never happens. There are also appeals but most appeal courts are reluctant to overrule a jury.

Finally, as I said in my opening, I spent half a year deciding that one man killed another. I was 1/12 of a decision to lock a human being up for 25 years. I hear people make light of jury duty but I honestly don't know how they can do it. As a juror you literally hold the life of the accused in your hands. I can tell you from experience, that life is heavy. It was very hard work, some of the hardest work I ever did in my life.

To close I should return to your original question. The defense had two very well respected attorneys, they didn’t do a bad job. However they did make a mistake. They put on a defense. They didn’t know until after the trial but if they had not put on any defense I would have hung the jury at least, or at most I would have been 1/12 of a not guilty verdict. The prosecution barely proved that a crime had been committed, let alone that the defendant had committed it. The defense chose to put the defendant on the stand. Their client was on the witness stand for six (6) days and aside from his name, I didn’t believe a word he said. He literally hung himself.

Answer 2

To some extent this is true. Each lawyer has different skills when it comes to presenting before a jury. Those that are able to make things the most simple and clear will likely be believed more than those who may try to get the jury to understand complicated evidence.

Answer 3

No. They are 12 people that could not figure out how to get out of jury duty.

Answer 4

actually a jury is only 4782647916, 900 people.

Answer 5

In many ways, yes.

Answer 6

good q and you have a point chow