The CSI effect and implications

[CaptainChewbacca]

Stofsk, I'm curious; when you were wrongfully convicted, was it a jury trial?

[Aratech]

I know things are different in America, though I'm unclear as to how seriously different they are.

Tanner v. United States. Mr. Tanner, IIRC, was convicted of shipping drugs via the U.S. postage system. One of his jurors came forward to indicate that a number of jury members were drunk during deliberations, had been asleep for parts of the trial, and more than one was shooting up heroin during the deliberations process, using coke, and one man even sold a quarter pound of dope to another juror (how's that for bitter irony?). Mr. Tanner moved to have a new trial. Despite the juror's testimony, and the trial judge's own admission that there were times when he noticed jurors nodding off or in 'a giggling mood' (some of them went out and got smashed during the trial process itself, not just in deliberations), his attempts were struck down, all the way up to the Supreme Court.

While I normally agree with most of Justice O'Connor's opinions, here I was forced to endure a long winded rant that basically amounts to 'You want jury oversight? You fool! You'll bring the whole damn system crashing down around our ears! Denied and back to jail with you!'

So yeah, take that, and combine it with the fact that one side or the other is going to ensure that only the stupidest, most easily manipulated individuals remain in the jury, whom they can easily sneak shit pass, and the illusion that a jury of one's peers is somehow more just is just that. An illusion.

The morbid joke among my professors (and just about every practicing lawyer, private or state employed that I've spoken with) has always been that if you find yourself charged with a crime, and you're innocent, request a bench trial. If you're guilty, go with a jury.

[Stofsk]

Stofsk, I'm curious; when you were wrongfully convicted, was it a jury trial?

Yep. Can't get bench trials in my state.

Stofsk, I'm pretty sure the reason jury panels were put into place was because when they were first enacted, everyone's experiance with justice had been a strict boolean of "does the Judge like you? Innocent. Does the Judge not like you? Hang him."

Without meaning to hijack this thread into yet-another-discussion-on-the-jury-system, while it is true that a judge can be unfairly biased towards or against the accused, that's true even in jury trials where they (the judges) are not the arbiters of fact. And the alternatives are not much better: juries can (and do) act out of sympathy or bias towards the accused, or the prosecution.

If you're going to argue that judge's shouldn't hold that sort of power, why have them around anyway? The fact remains that judges spend years as a lawyer, and have at the very least a degree in law. When they get offered a place as a judge, it comes with special training as well. Everything a judge rules on in a trial is on the record - their decisions form the basis for whatever appeal can be lodged against them. Juror's have none of that. If a judge makes a mistake, you can appeal against it. If a jury makes one, sure you can appeal, but it's hard to win that appeal. I'm one of the lucky ones.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Stofsk, I'm curious; when you were wrongfully convicted, was it a jury trial?

Yep. Can't get bench trials in my state.

That needs to get changed.