Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

A_Garbage_Truck t1_j2a0eyj wrote

that's the whole point they are there ot begin with they are required to study the facts and arguments presented and reach their own conclusions.

a conclusion of " i dont know" is not acceptable since the system relies on the assumption of innonence any other verdict other than guilty resulting in the defendant walking.

for this purpose, in the cases where its required the jury cna take as long as it is necessary but they must reach a unanimous conclusion.this cna evne mean they are arguing among themselves(but no coercing) in order ot sway the other memebers ot their field.

1

appa-ate-momo OP t1_j2a0min wrote

But how do juries so consistently avoid the problem of one random person just not being convinced of guilt while everyone else is sure the crime was committed?

2

Ansuz07 t1_j2a149x wrote

It is primarily due to the fact that prosecutors have broad discretion in what cases get brought to trial - they rarely bring cases where guilt is in question, as acquittals look bad on their record. In cases where a guilty verdict may be questionable, they will plead the person down on lesser charges or simply not bring it to trial at all.

For this reason, upwards of 94% of cases brought to trial result in convictions on some or all charges - the prosecutors simply don't press the other cases.

There is also an extensive jury selection process pre-trial, where the prosecution can exclude jurors they feel would be unable to render a fair decision after viewing all of the evidence.

10

phadrus56 t1_j2a0wj0 wrote

If the judge feels they should be able to reach a unanimous decision he will send them back to deliberate more.

2