SPEAKOUT: Debunking the top 10 myths of jury trials
By Richard J. Crawford
Published April 5, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
The public holds many misconceptions regarding the criminal justice system. Here are the top 10 myths of jury trials:
1. Your only chance as a defendant is to have lots of money.
This is largely false, primarily because as many as 80 percent of those charged with a crime are rigorously defended by public defenders or court-appointed attorneys. Believe it or not, if you have just enough money to hire your own trial lawyer, you might end up with a less effective defense lawyer than if you had very little money and were lucky enough to live in Colorado and receive representation from a career and free public defender.
2. Innocence will protect you in a criminal trial.
Regrettably, this is usually not the case. Specifically, for anyone who faces a jury, there is roughly an 85 percent chance that the trial will end up with a conviction. Tim Masters just might have something to say on this subject. Studies indicate that from 7 percent to 10 percent of those in prison today are actually innocent persons who got caught in this process.
3. Lawyers prefer jurors with little formal education.
The answer here is that it depends. There are instances like the recent Nacchio case when the issues are sufficiently complicated that both sides prefer very bright jurors. And, yes, there are other instances when the defendant is a barroom fighter of sorts and the defense would prefer to have jurors just like him who can identify with him.
4. Defendants should always take the stand in their own defense.
While all defendants have the absolute right to testify on their own behalf, frequently they do not exercise that right. And there is no doubt but that jurors often reason: "If he didn't do it, why doesn't he take the stand and say so?" On the other hand, there is a long list of very good reasons why a particular defendant should say nothing during his or her trial. For example, an innocent defendant may have once been convicted of a felony and the jury would learn that prejudicial fact only if that defendant decided to testify.
5. Juries sometimes find defendants innocent.
No, this cannot happen anywhere in these United States. "Guilty" or "not guilty" are the only two options open to an American jury. Sometimes juries believe that a defendant committed the act as charged, but that it was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the state, so they vote "not guilty" as a way of saying, "not proved." Sometimes juries think a defendant did not commit any crime and they vote "not guilty," meaning "innocent."
6. Defense lawyers who defend those they know to be guilty are unethical.
No, a person charged with a crime is never guilty unless and until a jury has said so and a judge has affirmed same. Our Constitution guarantees everyone the right to a vigorous defense or testing of the evidence and it would actually be illegal and unethical if a defendant were denied this right.
7. A trial is about discovering the truth.
No, the truth may be that a good young man broke the law when he went for the first time with a group who committed a robbery. But justice might say he should get another chance. The truth may be that a wife killed her violent husband, but justice might say she should not give up her freedom for that act. Trials are always about justice and the truth may be a part of getting there, but justice is the goal.
8. Jurors deliberate in the classic sense until they reach their final verdict.
The requirement for a unanimous verdict means that jurors usually only deliberate during the first stages of their time together. Ninety percent of the time, the majority overcomes the minority in order to get that unanimous verdict. Make no mistake about it, eight or nine jurors can and do exert enormous pressure on three or four holdouts to get a verdict that will wrap it up and get everyone home.
9. Evidence drives the outcome of jury verdicts.
Actually, when the evidence on either side of a case is overwhelming, a verdict can be pretty predictable. The reality is, however, that deals are almost always struck when one side or the other has a huge evidence advantage. Thus, since a majority of trials could go either way, the final verdict is often determined by nonevidentiary factors. Two such factors include the quality of the lawyers and the pro-conviction predisposition of most jurors.
10. When a jury votes guilty, that is final.
No verdict is ever final until the judge says so. In fact, although it is rare, the trial judge can set aside a guilty verdict with the tap of his or her gavel. Of course, any guilty verdict can also be appealed to a higher court.
Richard J. Crawford, Ph.D., is a founder and past national president of the American Society of Trial Consultants and has served as a trial consultant in more than 400 trials. He is a resident of Denver.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Legislature Blog
Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Rocky year in photos
View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Shanahan's career
See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.
-
12 days of Drew
Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
April 5, 2008
7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
DanPope writes:
11. Jury Nullification
Justice is the goal of the jury and one of the many traditional powers of a jury that isn't normally disclosed to them by the courts is that of jury nullification. If a jury truely feels that the law in question, or the way it is applied, is unjust it is their civil, moral and ethical responsibility to nullify the charges against the defendant by rendering a “not guilty” verdict regardless of any instructions from the judge.
Being judged by a jury of one’s piers is one of the cornerstones of our legal system, and jury nullification safeguards against injustices by the system and is integral to balancing the scales of justice.
April 5, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
Right, Dan. Except, there are rules against jury nullification, which are often ignored. Like with Marion Berry, the former mayor of Washington DC being acquited by an all black jury, because the jury members believed the system was biased, not that Berry was guilty.
Jury nullification is a weapon used by those with a cause and it can be used to convict someone who isn't guilty but the jury wants to send a message. Nullification is a left-wing tool just like activist judges. Both are illegal.
April 5, 2008
10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
DanPope writes:
Marion Barry was found guilty on one count of possessing cocaine and was sentenced to six months in federal prison back 1990.
The fact that a jury of his piers acquitted him on one possession charge and a mistrial was declared in the 12 other charges does not bother me at all, I accept the jury’s verdict. I believe that it is far better to allow 10 guilty people to go free than to find one innocent person guilty of any crime. It is a juror’s civic duty to fully examine the evidence and have a full understanding of the law, not necessarily the judge’s instructions, and to follow their moral compass to see that justice is served.
April 5, 2008
11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
And then Barry was rewarded with another term as mayor! Is that justice or what?
April 5, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
rg writes:
Jury nullification occurred in the O.J. Simpson case; jury nullification occurred over and over in the deep South; whereas, judicial nullification occurs far more than jury nullification. Nullification becomes a tool of bias and prejudice, also called common sense. Justice occurs when I win; you lose. Richard Grimes, deicide.
Deicide Corner: Jesus Christ was assisted in his suicide and were it not for the Jews the Pope wouldn't have a god since there would have been no resurrection: What garbage.
April 5, 2008
5:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
moralphilosophy writes:
Jury nullification happens to be something I know about: Just as it is in the prosecutor's discretion to prosecute, make a deal, drop charges or not even to investigate a person he believes to be guilty, a juror has no legal duty whatsoever to convict a defendant he believes is guilty. Even if a juror publicly admitted to this after trial there would be no legal recourse against him whatsoever. This is just a consequence of a jury system. The vast majority of criminals go free since prosecutors do not investigate or charge. Nullification is very rare by comparison. The first jury nullification was in a case where a colonialist was accused of insulting the British Crown. The jury let him go free, even though he admitted to be guilty. Other examples of jury nullification include acquittal of lynch murderers or of people involved in helping slaves escape. Today many juries acquit in the case of victimless crimes the government only selectively investigates. The above are all facts.
Now my opinion: There are few things that do more for this country's greatness, than jury nullification.
April 5, 2008
10:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
This is an example of a " Piled Higher and Deeper " expert who has an OPINION that could be dangerous....
Experts said the Earth was the center of the universe...
Experts said the Earth was flat...
Experts said that man couldn't build rockets; there was nothing to push against...
I think you get the point..
Someone needs a reality check...
April 6, 2008
3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
moralphilosophy writes:
@ The_Punisher :
I am really interested in this topic, but maybe I have my facts wrong. I would be very grateful if you could point out which one is wrong and where I can find evidence to support that (say mention a court decision). I have read many such decisions, but am eager to learn about those I have overlooked or misunderstood.
Thank you.
April 6, 2008
5:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
TomdeSabla writes:
Interesting article, but in the end worthless without an acknowledgement of how out-of-control government is in this country, and therefore how desperately needed "old school" jury nullification is right now.
I like moralphilosophy's comment quite a bit.
As to Mike_In_Hartsel's - I not only take issue with it specifically, but I'm pretty sure that there is a larger pattern here that many Americans are missing.
Mike says that jury nullification is illegal and a left-wing tool, but I have always heard the jurors are triers of both the law and the facts. I don't think there's any basis for equating judicial activism and jury nullification. How can the spontaneous decision of twelve citizens be driven by the same forces as the political leanings of a powerful government employee? How can such people be "a tool" of anybody but themselves?
It seems to me, that, in our traditional left-right paradigm, whenever somebody who thinks they're on one side wants to come out against something, they try to say that it is a tactic or cause of the other side. I don't see jury nullification as a left vs right issue; but instead as a people vs the government issue.
The same phenonomenon occurred with the Ron Paul campaign. Many who fancy themselves as being conservatives tried to paint Paul as a leftist because he has spoken out against imperialism - presumably because people on the "right" deny that we are an empire and only hear the charge from people on the left.
People who think that they are "progressive" came out against Paul as a "right winger" because he wants smaller government for real, not just rhetorically speaking - never mind that he was the only candidate from either party truly committed to what they claimed was their main cause - bringing our troops home from Iraq.
Both parties are statist, and both parties are the problem. Another thing I find interesting is that everybody knows politicians are dumb greedy bastards, and everybody talks about "the rule of law" and how important it is to "obey the law." But, wait a minute - who is it that creates these sage and lofty laws that people like Mike_In_Hartsel so revere?
Those same idiot politicians, that's who. No wonder we have needed and still need jurors to exercise every power the Founders envisioned to rein in an out-of-control government - particularly and specifically including jury nullification.
April 9, 2008
1:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
VoiceOfSanity writes:
'Reg' said, "Jury nullification occurred in the O.J. Simpson case".
No, it didn't. No reasonable juror could convict on such unsafe 'evidence' as was offered - replete with police and technician perjury and gross mishandling of the evidence. As the jurors themselves have commented, "We thought he was probably guilty, but we could not convict on what the prosecution presented".