> Well, one day I had a chance to sit on a panel. The case was against some
> poor schmuck allegedly selling pot. After the DA presented her case I had
> sufficient reasonable doubt in this case - even before the defendant opened
> his mouth (the poor fellow could not even utter a complete English sentence
> in his defence and of course he had no attorney). I thought to myself what
> the other eleven were thinking and if I would have any difficulty to
> convince them that looking suspicious is not enough to prove guilt beyond
> *reasonable doubt.* However, I did not have a chance to find out. The
> judge dismissed the case when the key witness (the cop who allegedly saw
> the "crime" did not show up).
Assuming that you're not a fan of the War on the Poor^H^H^H^HDrugs, then you wouldn't have even needed "reasonable doubt" to not convict this fellow:
"We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).
> I think, however, that jury selection is a joke - it is process of
> ascertaining that only those who have no opinions whatsover and an IQ of a
> vegetable will serve.
Unfortunately that is true. I doubt I'll ever get jury duty because of my political affiliations. But what improvements can we make? Parties need to be able to exclude jurors.
It would go a long way if jurors were told their full power as asbiters of justice. FIJA ( http://www.fija.org ) is a good place to start, although the individualistic liberalism may be an anathema to some.
IANAL,
Matt
-- Matt Cramer <cramer at voicenet.com> http://www.voicenet.com/~cramer/ What is the producer in actual society? Nothing. What should he be? Everything.
-Pierre-Joseph Proudhon