If you're on the jury and...

amother

Thu, May 09 2019, 11:35 am

You're on the jury and have a molestation or rape case. There are witnesses that the defendant was seen leaving the proximity of the plaintiff who was clearly in distress at the time. She contacted the police right afterwards with her charge identifying the defendant.

The defendant who is from a group you dislike and believe is more prone to such crimes denies all charges. He does not deny having been near the alleged crime scene or even having had some sort of contact with her at the time it was allegedly happening but denies being a/the perpetrator. There is no physical or other evidence that he is guilty. The plaintiff is meanwhile breaking down and crying on the witness stand and insisting that he is guilty etc.

How would you judge and what do you think would happen?

My opinion would be that he is probably guilty but being that he wasn't proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt I would vote for acquittal. In the real world I think he would be convicted.

I practically would like to hear from those who disagree with me. How was the defendant PROVEN guilty beyond all reasonable doubt that you would vote to convict?

amother

Sienna

Thu, May 09 2019, 11:45 am

I would think that in a rape case that was reported right away and the alleged perpetrator is known, DNA would be gathered to either convict or clear. Without DNA to convict, it's he said she said and not enough to convict.

groovy1224

Thu, May 09 2019, 11:46 am

No, I would not vote to convict if there was no physical evidence of his guilt.

Is the questions whether she was raped/molested at all? Or is known she was attacked and the question is who the perpetrator was?

amother

Thu, May 09 2019, 11:48 am

amother [ Blue ] wrote:

are you discussing a theoretical, or are you currently a jury member?

Theoretical but this is actually a question I have had about real life cases (with some variation) when the emotions were too strong for me to ask it.

thunderstorm

Thu, May 09 2019, 11:55 am

AmGold wrote:

I would tell the court that I'm biased against the defendants group

I was called to jury duty of a child rape case and one of the questions the judge asked us was "Have you ever been s-xually assaulted or have a family or friend that's was that could make you biased"? I raised my hand and asked to speak to him privately regarding this topic as I would he biased based on the horrific details of this case and that I know people who have been s-xually abused etc. The fact that I asked the judge to speak to him since I didn't feel comfortable talking about it in front of others made me completely disqualified to even sit on the jury. I wasn't the only one. I would never be able to be impartial in a rape case.

amother

Blue

Thu, May 09 2019, 11:57 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Theoretical but this is actually a question I have had about real life cases (with some variation) when the emotions were too strong for me to ask it.

What does this mean "The defendant who is from a group you dislike"? Racial group?

If that is the case - you should be clear with the jury panel that you are not a suitable juror.

Rappel

Thu, May 09 2019, 11:58 am

First of all - the juror should recuse himself for racial bias.

Second - without evidence (s3men, DNA, trauma+really good forensics, a recording), then the defendant is innocent.

Last edited by Rappel on Thu, May 09 2019, 2:05 pm; edited 1 time in total

amother

Natural

Thu, May 09 2019, 12:03 pm

I could never sit on a zxual assault case cause it hits too close to home but unfortunately even if I thought the guy was guilty I would morally have to acquit him because without evidence our legal system says he cant really be convicted. Even though most jurors dont follow that law they legally should as it destroys our legal system when we dont follow the law even in difficult circumstances.

Cases like these should not even be tried by jury but rather by the judge alone. Jurors are not impartial enough to judge based on the law but rather go based on emotions. You hope a judge who went to law school and learned the legalities would be able to set aside their biases.

Sebastian

Thu, May 09 2019, 12:07 pm

amother [ Natural ] wrote:

NOT how our legal system works.

If there were no other evidence, I would acquit.

WhatFor

Thu, May 09 2019, 12:14 pm

Rappel wrote:

....

Second - without evidence (s3men, DNA, trauma+really good forensics, a recording), then the defendant is innocent.

This isn't true exactly because testimony alone is considered evidence. In cases where there is no physical evidence, prosecutors might ask potential jurors whether they would be able convict an assault without DNA evidence and not select those who wouldn't.

Anyway, the standard the OP was using seemed a bit higher than "beyond a reasonable doubt". Beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean beyond the smallest possibility that it happened. It means would it be reasonable to doubt it or are you jumping through hoops to doubt it?

It's definitely not a perfect system on many levels, and I'm not saying I agree with all of it, but that's how it works.

Sebastian

Thu, May 09 2019, 12:33 pm

WhatFor wrote:

I would convict based on testimony alone but the testimony the OP posted does leave room for reasonable doubt.

Rappel

Thu, May 09 2019, 12:42 pm

WhatFor wrote:

This isn't true exactly because testimony alone is considered evidence.

Indeed it is.

But (and I can't believe I'm saying this, since in social matters I take the opposite stance), legally, the testimony of a r@pe case is very tricky, since it's heavily steeped in bias.

I have a criminal law textbook with more than 200 pages devoted to r@pe cases. It's extremely difficult to correctly judge such a case without more evidence than testimony. Example: a rocky bf/gf relationship. He says they were together willingly on such and such day. She says it was r@pe. Could be he's lying. Could be she's trying to take revenge on him for some quarrel they've had. Now what is the jury supposed to do?

amother

Cyan

Thu, May 09 2019, 1:50 pm

The only way to prove the defendant guilty is by forensic evidence through a rape kit done at the hospital & DNA testing. Or a surveillance video that caught what happened. Otherwise there's no way to prove the man guilty and he will be let off the hook.
If I'm biased against certain people I would let the court know.

Miri7

Thu, May 09 2019, 3:57 pm

A family member was in a big jury pool for a rape case. The defense attorney asked the whole group to raise their hand if they or someone close to them had been the victim of a s-xual assault. My family member said every single woman raised her hand, and a few men.

The judge did not allow the defense attorney to excuse all of the women. Instead, they asked who would be unable to be impartial. A few raised their hand to that and were dismissed.

However, if this is one's attitude: "The defendant who is from a group you dislike and believe is more prone to such crimes denies all charges" then you have zero business on that jury. You need to straight tell the judge that you think the defendant's group is more likely to commit such crimes.