US Supreme Court Ruling Ends Oregon's Non-unanimous Jury Verdicts

[leadcounsel]

I applaud this SCOTUS ruling.

Many of you probably don't know that in the military conviction of a crime is and remains a super majority (i.e. 3 out of 5). That system is stacked against the accused in so many ways it's mind boggling, but true.

Anyway, given the weight and lifetime consequences, I've always believed any criminal allegations and a conviction must fundamentally be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury pool. Seems to me if even 1 juror isn't convinced or doesn't believe it there's reasonable doubt.

 

[RangerArms]

The key word here is "reasonable". Is it really reasonable for that 12th outlier to absolutely refuse to believe someone is guilty if a case had all the evidence to convince the other 11 people BEYOND a reasonable doubt? For example, take a case with DNA evidence, the gold-standard, where maybe one juror does not believe in the science and flat out refuses to believe it. That's not reasonable at all. So then you have to go back to square one and HOPE you get a normal reasonable person that doesn't suffer from the CSI effect and expect the case to be proven beyond ALL doubt!

 

[PaulB47]

Political Prisoners in America | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty

 

[leadcounsel]

The key word here is "reasonable". Is it really reasonable for that 12th outlier to absolutely refuse to believe someone is guilty if a case had all the evidence to convince the other 11 people BEYOND a reasonable doubt? For example, take a case with DNA evidence, the gold-standard, where maybe one juror does not believe in the science and flat out refuses to believe it. That's not reasonable at all. So then you have to go back to square one and HOPE you get a normal reasonable person that doesn't suffer from the CSI effect and expect the case to be proven beyond ALL doubt!

The remedy for that is called effective voir dire. In other words, the Court and lawyers effectively vet the pool of jurors before hand to weed out the goofballs and tin foil hatters and CSI experts.

 

[Provincial]

Challenge of jurors is limited. If it was unlimited, juries might be more balanced. For instance, currently in the Portland area, it is very difficult or impossible to assemble a jury without a liberal tendency.

 

[RicInOR]

And one wonders why most convictions are Pre-Trial -- Plea deals. Why would a prosecutor want to risk a unanimous jury if they don't have to?

 

[03A3Sporter]

My take on this is that the SCOTUS is righting a wrong that Oregon made decades ago . Things are as they should be, a jury has the power of life and death over others when they are on trial. Any conviction or acquittal should be a unanimous decision especially when the stakes are so high.

 

[titsonritz]

Beat me to it, thanks for posting. Coming from a state that had unanimous verdicts (narrows it down to 48 others) it was a surprising to find out Oregon was one of the two. I think the main advantage / disadvantage is it puts jury nullification back on the table.

Kinda, sorta like the whole no self pumping of gas thing. I wonder if there is a relation, with the fumes and all.