you asked the wrong guy.. everything I own is insured and my life is worth more than the deductible.. so will I get in the way between robbers and 2000 cash or my neioghbors 2000 cash? no
why does this matter? the men were unarmed. they were shot in the back. if it were a hypo and the facts were different, those things would be considered. but when you're sitting in your house...and the 911 operator is instructing you there are police in the area and you shouldn't go out and confront the situation...and you do anyway...and you shoot them in the back, killing them...you can't really avail yourself of the, "yeah, but if i had gotten in their way they might have hurt me!" defense.
It is not a juror's job to interpret the law. Not at all. Your job as a juror is to listen to the facts of the case. Consider the evidence presented in court and that alone, and then determine whether a man is innocent or guilty. The law is the law. Any help understanding a portion of the law can be given to you upon request. It is not up to a juror to decide that the law was written to bust bad people and good people shouldn't get hurt by it.
Jurors aren't supposed to interpret the law - in fact they are instructed by the judge to apply the facts to the law given to them by the court. When they have questions on the law, they are instructed to refer to the law given to them in the jury charge. Most judges tell the jury from the getgo that they (the jury) are the judges of the facts and the he/she (the judge) is the judge of the law. If a jury is interpretting the law...something isn't right. Jury trials in Texas are bifurcated, there are two phases guilt and sentencing. You don't get to consider punishment during the first phase, namley because you haven't heard all of the punishment evidence (both from the state and the defense). No crime "results" in probation - that is a decision the jury must come to unanimously IF the defendant is eligible, again - something you don't know during the phase where you determine his guilt. I assure you based on your comments, there's no way you'd ever make this jury.
That's two less threats to society as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't convict Horn. Maybe that will send a message to future thugs who think about breaking into a home.
IMO, vigilantes shooting fleeing people on the back are bigger threats to society than unarmed petty thieves
We disagree, because that is exactly what I think my job as a juror is.... Laws are written by man. When writing those laws they can not take into account each and every possible application of said laws. An example would have been that 17 year old boy convicted of getting a blow job in Georgia that was sentenced to 20 years. If I was on that jury, and knew the penalties for such a conviction, he would not be convicted, I would hold out forever. Sometimes laws are unjust.....and I believe it is up to jurors to decide that topic based on the merits of each case. DD
In the great State of Texas, you don't even get presented with the law. You are presented with questions of fact. They hand you a jury charge full of questions of fact. You don't get to determine questions of law. That's the judge's job. At least that's the way it is in civil court.
Not in civil court. You answer factual questions. Again, I dont' know if this is the case in criminal court. But in civil court, you get a set of yes or no factual questions. Did Johnny do X? Did Frank and Bonnie enter into an agreement? etc I've never practiced in a criminal court, so I have no idea if it's different there.
If you do - you're violating your oath as a juror. You technically only find out the penalties for the charges if the judge, prosecutor, or defense attorney tell you in voir dire (jury selection). In felony cases that's pretty much a given as both sides are voir diring about punishment as well as guilt (at least in 90%+ of the cases). However, that is not to be a factor into your determination of guilt. If you as a juror say, well he's guilty, but only if he can't get more than 20...well, then you're not doing your job. Whether or not someone is guilty of a crime should have nothing to do with what penalty he is facing - this is not a matter of opinion - this is the law. That is why we have two phases of trial in the criminal system. If you feel this way, make sure that you are honest and speak up during voir dire because if you can't follow the law, you can't be on a jury (and what I mean by that is you will be struck for cause) - end of story.
I was on a jury with a guy with DaDakota's opinion. He decided he didn't want the defendant to lose and answered the questions of fact to make sure he didn't. The jury (me included) eventually went his way, but I was pissed at how he went about it. (The lawyers afterward asked me if jurors were acting in good faith and I said we were -- I wasn't going to rat him out.)
Rat him out? He was doing his citizens duty. If he was factual in his interpetation, I don't see a problem. DD
I seriously can't believe you just asked this question, that's pretty judgemental of you. edit: the question infers alot, its very loaded
