If you were on a jury in a criminal trial and you were convinced that the defendant is guilty would you cave?

Question

If you were on a jury in a criminal trial and you were convinced that the defendant is guilty would you cave?

Answer 1

If are the only person out of 12, then you need to consider just why it is you are of such a set mind. Many people do not know just how difficult it is to deal with our own flaws and bias, open the mind and view things neutrally.



This happened in the first Rod Blagojevich trail, one woman refused, without explanation to convict him. This resulted in a hung jury and a new trail. That one put Rob where he belongs, in a federal prison. In American law one juror can not overturn the majority. Rightfully so. The result is a new trail and more cost to the tax payers. This stuff of a single juror changing the minds of 11 other jurors in pretty much fiction. In the real world it has never happened. Only in movies.



By the way, Illinois leads the nation in wrongful convictions. Rarely is this the fault of the jury system. The errors are mostly made by states attorneys and the police. Recent studies have shown a great weakness and huge bias in the methods and use, of evidence finding and interpretation by publicly funded forensic facilities. So if you anticipate a jury trail in your future remember the system is far from prefect.

Answer 2

I've been a in similar situation - I was on the jury of a rape case recently. Amongst the 12 very opinionated jurors. I was one of only three who thought the man was innocent. The 9 who thought he was guilty, were very vocal and strong-minded -- but we three who saw him as innocent , argued our cases very forcefully. After two days of deliberations, we finally came to any agreement - innocent.



I think when you have 12 people, you are always going to have opposing views. I'm sure that in most cases, that is true. So you have to thrash it out, look at all the evidence and talk about it. If one or two people feel the opposite to the majority, then you have to show each other what makes you think that way. I believe that in most cases, the correct verdict is found because it is based on a consensus of opinion, after looking at all the facts .

Answer 3

I've been on 4 juries. Twice in district court and twice in Circuit court. If I believe the evidence is strong for a conviction I have held my ground and no that one particular case did NOT go to mistrial or hung jury. Most had been leaning to a conviction on a lesser charge but I argued on why I believed he should get the more serious conviction (assault with intent to commit murder). The rest finally agreed when I laid out my reasoning. It was not on circumstantial evidence there was hard physical and scientific evidence that proved it but the defendant had a good lawyer. He's in prison where he belongs for a good long time.



A couple of people had thought that a nice looking, well dressed man like him could not be guilty of such savagery. They allowed his looks and lawyer to lead them to ignore the evidence.

Answer 4

I could probably not serve on such a jury as I would have been exposed to information and formed an opinion. Example, the Anthony case.



If seated as a juror on a case I knew nothing about prior to the testimony and evidence presented, and when time for the jury to find their conclusions, I would not be swayed unless another juror could point out to me something I had missed, not considered.



A very difficult spot, but one must be strong in their convictions.

Answer 5

Have been there. OK some of the other members just were not sure, but I was, so I said I would vote guilty. In the UK a jury does not get to know if there were any previous convictions. It was a rape case. He looked so clean cut, smart and good looking and behaved so respectfully in the court. His appearance fooled the other women and even the men to a degree. But we ended up bringing in a majority verdict against him.



Afterward, before the judge dismissed us, he said



"And as for the members of the jury who did not wish to find this man guilty. He is marred with three children, and has 3 previous charges of rape and 4 others of GBH towards women on his record".



Beulah

Answer 6

If my decision was different than 11 other peoples', that would be a good indication that I seriously needed to rethink things and go over the evidence and notes again. If after doing so, I still felt they were guilty...I think I'd hold my ground...but I'm not positive. However, if the situation was reversed and I was certain that the defendant was innocent...no way would I cave. I'd rather see 10 guilty people go free than to see just one innocent person get locked up.

Answer 7

I have been on a jury. No, I am pretty stubborn. People don't sway me, but You never know how you react till you face problems. A person deserves a fair trial, though not every trial is fair. Before DNA many most likely severed unfair sentence. Others executed, while others walk free who were actually guilty.

Answer 8

I was in that position and I held my ground.



I was the Foreman and eventual changed the minds of the rest of the jury.



After 9 months someone else was convicted of the crime.

Answer 9

I have been there and done that. The jury discusses it until they come to an agreement. I was the only one for the defendant. I refused to cave, so we discussed it some more. Eventually the entire jury came to my way of thinking. The defendant was innocent, and evidence came out after the trial which vindicated me along with the defendant. Had I caved, an innocent man would have been punished. I did it for him because I knew he was innocent.

Answer 10

I would work more toward consensus: an agreement in which not everyone buys into one hundred percent, but one everyone can live with. Maybe you can't live with first degree murder, but what about second degree?



I would not compromise my principles, however. I would not vote guilty as charged if I didn't believe the defendant was guilty. At best, I might consider a lesser charge, if there was sufficient evidence of wrongdoing..

Answer 11

I would go by the evidence presented, even if it meant holding my ground and not give in to the other jurors.

Answer 12

I think I would have to be very certain of the guilt to go against all of the others especially if the rules of the court insisted on 100% agreement (most courts accept a majority verdict) but yes if I were that certain I would keep to my view.

Answer 13

Juries are an abomination and a disgrace. Because of human nature in general, and because of the way that they are selected in particular, juries are almost always made up of ignorant, superstitious, vindictive, bigoted creeps who take special pleasure in being allowed to destroy someone's life while enjoying the sweet delusion that they are the instruments of "justice" rather than the instruments of sadism.



There is also the problem of cops and prosecutors, who routinely accuse the wrong people. And there is also the problem of the law itself, which routinely criminalizes things which should not be considered criminal.



But it's interesting that you have for some reason chosen the more trivial of the two possibilities. The much more important side of the question is what should you do if everyone says guilty (as they are mostly inclined to do) and you have the wisdom to say innocent. I was going to quote Sir William Blackstone's well known dictum on this, but I see that "Get In Line" beat me to it.

Answer 14

Of course I'd like to think I would hold my ground, but that's really easy to say until you're actually in a situation like that. I am usually quite opinionated and steadfast, though, so it would be hard to get me to cave.

Answer 15

My convictions would hold sway over the pressure of others. I remember the original version of the movie, "Twelve Angry Men" and the stand that the character played by Henry Fonda took. He was the only one who was not quick to rush to judgment and he stood his ground when all those around him were adamant about the defendant's guilt.

Answer 16

I would hold my ground. We NEVER know when we might be arrested and accused of something we never did. There have been people who were sent to death row or imprisoned for years who were 100% innocent. Being a juror is a huge responsibility. You do not want to screw up and send a murderer out onto the streets OR send an innocent to prison for something they didn't do.

Answer 17

I would hold my ground, even if I end up hanging a jury.

Answer 18

I was on jury service but the verdict was unanimous

Answer 19

I would hold my ground.If the criminal was acquitted he or she would laugh at the judicial system and commit the same crime only with a different victim.



I am a fighter and can be very stubborn when I know I'm right.Others opinions mean nothing to me in matters of right and wrong.

Answer 20

If I was convinced the defendant was guilty,I'd stand my ground.

Answer 21

I would stand my ground. Criminals get off too easy as it is.

Answer 22

I would hold my ground.

Answer 23

cave, i would feel the majority was correct.