I was watching an episode of Law & Order and Iwas wondering :
If you are found guilty by a jury at a very narrow vote, and the person with the deciding vote was later convicted of a crime (say a murder) is that grounds for an appeal?
2007-10-20 05:24:04 · 5 answers · asked by MajorCrumpet 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
You can't be found guilty by a "narrow vote" it has to be unanimous, and what a juror does later on is not grounds for an appeal.
2007-10-20 05:30:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It sounds like bad writing to me. First of all, you cannot be found guilty by a narrow vote (not like the supreme court). All the jurors have to agree (hence deliberation and sequestering) and give a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If it's a close vote, it's certainly not within the guilty beyond a reasonable doubt criterion. Finally, it does not matter at all as far as that case went what the jurors do or get convicted of afterward. It wouldn't matter if all of the jurors later commited murder and got convicted.
2007-10-20 12:36:54 · answer #2 · answered by Elsie 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if the juror was involved some way with the case -- meaning they were not impartial.
Just because the juror later committed some unrelated crime -- that has no effect on your conviction.
2007-10-20 12:47:00 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
sorry u cant appeal
2007-10-20 13:09:28 · answer #4 · answered by Invader 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No
2007-10-20 12:31:11 · answer #5 · answered by Jeff 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋