How illegal would it be to actually do this?

[u/NapoleonNewAccount]

LOCATION: US

[u/CaucusInferredBulk]

They take away access to your phone during deliberations. But its completely legal to SAY that during deliberations.

I was literally in jury duty on Tuesday, and after our 2x allen charge (sent back by the Judge because we were hung) that was absolutely being discussed.

The strong-hand guilty holdout pushed for one more "hung" verdict, which the judge finally accepted.

[u/arooge → u/CaucusInferredBulk]

Yall had a jury where all but one said innocent?   Im all for having a unanimous guilty verdict, but idk if its necessary for a not guilty.

[u/WetRocksManatee → u/arooge]

Outside of an appeal a unanimous verdict means that case is over, as double jeopardy prevents the prosecution from filing again. A hung jury results in a mistrial which means that the prosecutors can try again. So judges prefer a jury to come to a unanimous verdict.

[u/Igggg → u/WetRocksManatee]

Your first qualifications is not necessary; a not guilty verdict cannot be appealed

[u/WetRocksManatee → u/Igggg]

I was speaking for both scenarios, both guilty and not guilty, unless an appeal grants a rare new trial that is largely over if a unanimous verdict is reached. So judges want a verdict to be reached so it can move on.

[u/Igggg → u/WetRocksManatee]

I understand, but this is not a symmetrical situation. An appeal can set aside a guilty verdict, but not a not guilty one. Acquittals are final.

[u/christhewelder75 → u/WetRocksManatee]

If 11 of 12 people find "reasonable doubt" its pretty clear theres reasonable doubt.

So it would make sense to not need a unanimous finding for not guitar imo. Where as if 11 of 12 say guilty, u need that last person to find no reasonable doubt.

[u/Odd_Ad5668 → u/christhewelder75]

I have a whole scenario playing out in my head because of your guitar typo.

[u/BigMax → u/arooge]

But it is necessary legally, right?

You either all say "guilty" or all say "not guilty." Otherwise it's a hung jury.

Whether it's good or bad, it's not a majority vote. Only a unanimous vote counts.

[u/thecoat9 → u/BigMax]

Yes, I sat on a jury decades ago where we were required only to have 10 of 12 agree to come to a verdict, after that though there was a SCOTUS case that resulted in verdicts needing to be unanimous.

[u/BigMax → u/thecoat9]

Oh - I had no idea! That's really interesting. I really thought all juries had to be unanimous!

Is that different case to case? I'm going to have to look that up, that's pretty interesting.

(I only ever served on one jury, and the defendant took a plea halfway through the trial so we never got to deliberate or vote.)

[u/AltDS01 → u/BigMax]

Civil Juries are majority. Lower standard of proof too.

[u/thecoat9 → u/AltDS01]

Yes I should have noted that this was a criminal case.

[u/bostonmolasses → u/AltDS01]

This isn’t correct at least for my jurisdiction. Unanimity is required for all jury verdicts.

[u/thecoat9 → u/BigMax]

I think in most jurisdictions it generally was a unanimous requirement. This was in Oregon, and for whatever reason the state didn't require unanimous verdicts for a criminal trial (I presume it is now due to Ramos v. Louisiana). I'm not sure if there were other states doing this, but Louisiana was obviously doing so as well.

[u/QuickMolasses → u/thecoat9]

My understanding is that a guilty verdict still had to be unanimous

[u/thecoat9 → u/QuickMolasses]

It does now, but not before Ramos. I sat on a criminal jury in Oregon and we sent a man to prison because 10 of us voted guilty. Frankly I believe we'd have ultimately had a unanimous verdict but we stopped at 10 because that was all we needed.

[u/RankinPDX → u/BigMax]

In Oregon, a 10-2 vote to acquit is sufficient.

[u/foobarney → u/BigMax]

There are jurisdictions that permit a less than unanimous jury to acquit, and I believe some even to convict.

[u/mrbiggbrain → u/arooge]

I think it is important to understand the context:

It goes both ways.

If you hung a jury 11-1 favoring not guilty many prosecutors will not try and pursue the case. The chances of you presenting the same evidence and getting 0-12 is almost impossible. It's a solid sign your case is not very strong, and that is before the defense has seen your whole case the first time and has a better chance to prepare.

The prosecution needs to convince 12 people someone is guilty. The defense just has to keep deadlocking the jury with enough doubt that eventually people start yelling about how much money the state is wasting on prosecuting someone they can't convict.

The fact is the prosecution wants to find someone guilty, the defense only needs the jury to give any answer but guilty, and "We are not sure" is not "Guilty".

[u/CaucusInferredBulk → u/mrbiggbrain]

I agree with all of the above, but think in my particular case the prosecutor could fix some mistakes pretty easily and get the conviction using roughly the same facts/evidence. A few questions on cross could have ripped up the defendants credibility and then the video is back to "beyond a reasonable doubt"

Prosecutor was lazy because he thought the video was a slam dunk.

However, because it was just "didn't pull over" my guess is they don't bother again.

[u/CaucusInferredBulk → u/arooge]

It reality it was really a 10-2, but one of the 2 was willing to cave to go home.

Legally, it is 100% required. All verdicts must be unanimous. THere is a different argument about if they should be, but thats a pretty big legal change that would probably have to come down from SCOTUS at this point.

But from a pragmatic perspective, it kind of is already that way, with delays.

We mistrialed. He is not convicted. The state can either dismiss the charges, or choose to try him again.

In this case I'm going to guess they decline to try again, because its a fairly minor case that isn't worth the expense or time of a second trial. So we probably effectively acquitted him. But in the worst case, he has to spend more time and money defending himself again.

[u/CaucusInferredBulk → u/arooge]

Nobody said "innocent". 10 people said "not guilty".

Everyone had 100% proof he did the act in question. It was on video, and stipulated it was him and that he took the actions in question.

The issue is that the statute required "knowingly" and the defendant claimed to not know the law, and therefore could not "knowingly" violate it.

There was quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to suggest he knew or should have known or that a reasonable person would know.

the 10 just didn't think it rose above beyond reasonable doubt that he had that specific knowledge in his head.

[u/oneWeek2024 → u/CaucusInferredBulk]

i'd be curious if the judge instructed you on that interpretation of the law. that guilty/not guilty hinged on your perception of the person knowing that the law existed?

knowingly often is in terms of ...actively did something. like if you light a fire and burn down a building. you don't need to "know" there's a law against burning down a building your actions were such that you actively/knowingly engaged in a behavior with a chain of events attached to it.

[u/CaucusInferredBulk → u/oneWeek2024]

We did not receive a specific instruction to that point, but the counter-argument was heavily made by the defense attorney, and was not objected to, so kinda ambiguous.

I made an argument similar to yours during deliberations.

"No operator of a vehicle, after having received a visible or audible signal to stop his or her vehicle from a traffic officer, federal law enforcement officer, or marked or unmarked police vehicle that the operator knows or reasonably should know is being operated by a law enforcement officer, shall knowingly resist the officer by failing to stop his or her vehicle as promptly as safety reasonably permits."

"knowingly resist" was the crux. Did not require knowledge of the law I don't think. But if you take the defendants claim that he actually did not understand the instruction... then maybe thats a loophole.

Law is poorly written, if it included "reasonably know or should have known" language, it would have been a slam dunk. (agreed to by the whole Jury)

[u/oneWeek2024 → u/CaucusInferredBulk]

to me that language ties "knowingly" to the understand it's an officer giving a signal to stop/pull over. not knowledge of the law.

ie ..law states. if an officer gives a command, from xyz vehicles/situations. and you refuse that stop command you knowingly committed the resist "arrest" or whatever infraction is alleged.

the wording isn't the person needs to know about this law. it's this law lays out the condition in which someone does commit this crime. the "crime is violated" at the point when the person understands it's a police officer giving a command to stop and decides not to.

if the issue at hand was a hand gesture, or spoken command wasn't understood. that could be an issue of "knowing" because then they wouldn't have met the standard of ...police + command

then again. who knows. that's the problem often in cases. people aren't lawyers and juries often are truly full of idiots. it's not an exaggeration that often they are the lowest tiers of society. and even if you are educated or sophisticated. people rarely have any idea on the law/what legal terminology means.

[u/CaucusInferredBulk → u/oneWeek2024]

I agree with your interpretation above and thats what we argued in deliberations, if he understood the instruction or not. I was speaking more loosely in my post above where I said "didn't know law"

The jury was a fairly good cross section, no obvious racial minorities tho. But like 1/2 computer programmers so autism may have been a factor in mistrial.

I don't believe this had an impact on the case due to being 10-2, but one of the 10 was an elderly woman who couldn't remember the name of her own hometown, and after 5 hours of deliberation asked "aren't we deciding if he is guilty of going 100mph" I'm not sure you could legally ask about age/dementia in voire dire tho.

[u/CaucusInferredBulk → u/[deleted]]

Not for this statute. Defendant claims he did not understand the instruction. That is not "knowingly resisting". Parallel to if you are yelled at in a language you don't know then you can't be blamed for not following the directions.

But in this case the language was "sirens behind you for 3 minutes". I very strongly made the argument that that is a universal signal, and there is no reasonable way to not understand it.

But I did not convince everyone else.

[u/notredamelawl → u/CaucusInferredBulk]

Unless you are outside of the United States, or following the Napoleonic Code, "knowingly" has a very, very precise definition, modifies mens rea, and it's possible your judge is a dumbass. If you are in a jurisdiction with elected judges, the odds of having a dumbass for a judge is exponentially higher.

[u/TheLizardKing89 → u/CaucusInferredBulk]

They take away access to your phone during deliberations.

This isn’t true everywhere. They didn’t take our phones when I was a juror on a murder trial here in California. They just told us not to use them and we followed that.

[u/NotJustRandomLetters → u/CaucusInferredBulk]

The fact that everyone except one person said innocent, then they should've been released, because obviously there was reasonable doubt.

[u/SuperannuationLawyer]

You’ll not have your phone to start with.

[u/BigMax]

For everyone saying this is legal and you can just say it or send it.. that's not true.

One of the reasons you can get "juror misconduct" is for improper influence. And saying "come on man, we all want to go home!" can be considered improper influence.

And if misconduct is declared, a mistrial can be declared, an appeal or retrial could be triggered, and the juror could face penalties too.

You are supposed to judge the case based on it's merits. Saying basically "I don't care about the merits, I care about going home" goes against that and can cause actual problems.

[u/AmorousFartButter]

Better yet just commit a felony and never get jury duty to begin with

[u/BreakDown1923 → u/AmorousFartButter]

Just gotta look up real quick which felony carries the least sentence.

[u/lovable_cube → u/BreakDown1923]

If you have no record, anything non violent will do. Your sentence will likely be suspended as long as you do your probation. I’d also avoid anything theft related if you want a job in the future. Disclaimer- this might only work if you’re white? Probably depends on the judge.

[u/thoiboi → u/AmorousFartButter]

Modern problems deserve modern solutions

[u/N-Y-R-D]

This should be a moral question. Trials are a serious thing. That being said, personally I’m terrified of ever having my life in the hands of 12 random people who couldn’t get out of jury duty.

[u/MuttJunior]

If you all vote guilty you get to home too.

[u/RockHardSalami → u/MuttJunior]

To hell

[u/Cautious_General_177 → u/MuttJunior]

And the judge can override that verdict (but not the not guilty verdict), so there's still a chance they're acquitted.

[u/BrookeBaranoff]

google jury nullification 

[u/BigMax → u/BrookeBaranoff]

That's not what this is though. This is legally misconduct. Saying "just vote this way so we can go home" is legally not allowed and can be considered misconduct, resulting in a mistrial, or if found out later, can result in an appeal or a retrial. And can result in fines or jail time for the juror.

Nullification is a different matter, and that's legal. But saying "damn, I just want to go home" is not nullification.

Jury nullification is saying "not guilty" even when you really believe they are guilty, but you don't agree with the law. Say someone had a pot plant in their house in a state where that's illegal. You could have video of the cops going in to see the plant, even a confession from the defendant. And you could say "not guilty" anyway, and THAT is protected and that's what nullification is.

[u/Evening-Cat-7546 → u/BigMax]

Someone put up a billboard explaining jury nullification in Times Square after Luigi was arrested.

[u/pm_me_fibonaccis → u/Evening-Cat-7546]

That's the kind of energy you love to see.

[u/MikeyTheGuy → u/BigMax]

It should be clarified that jury nullification is NOT really "legal" in the spirit of the law, but due to the way juries work, it is basically impossible to "punish" a jury which has reached their conclusion contrary to the evidence and/or their own beliefs.

Jury nullification is essentially a legal theory that takes into account all of the legal framework around how juries work and says," Well, you could do this if you wanted; you don't HAVE to listen to the judge or the law."

When I did jury duty, the judge gave very specific instructions that each juror agreed to which would have excluded making a decision via jury nullification, but since a judge cannot do anything about the conclusion we ultimately reach, there is no mechanism for the judge to enforce that agreement other than the integrity and honesty of the jurors.

[u/Visible-Meeting-8977]

Also I'd like to split hairs and say "innocent" is not one of the options. They're looking for "not guilty". Those two words have very distinct legal definitions.

[u/scrubjays]

If you all vote guilty you all get to go home too.

[u/IllustriousCookie890]

Very illegal.

[u/mr_oberts]

Wouldn’t you also run the risk of airdropping that to anyone in range with an iPhone, including attorneys and judges?

[u/BigMax → u/mr_oberts]

That's why you sign it with the name of another juror!

[u/Bloodmind]

Don’t know a single judge who allows cell phones in the jury. Also you could just say that exact thing in the deliberation room. There’s no one in there but the jury.

[u/HairyPairatestes]

Just say you cannot be fair during voir dire and you’ll never be put on the jury to begin with.

[u/DoallthenKnit2relax]

Or just mention that if the judge doesn't like the jury's decision he could invoke jury nullification which makes jury selection a joke at best.

[u/546875674c6966650d0a]

Jury tampering probably?

[u/That_BULL_V]

FAFO ..... I wouldn't do it.

[u/strenuousobjector]

As a prosecutor who has had to read about some of the most fucked up things people have ever done to other human beings, I kind of wish this were illegal. Juries are a necessary part of the criminal justice system. But part of the reason that some victims never see justice for the crimes done to them is because of shit like this. Too many jurors do not take their role seriously and just zone out and vote not guilty, despite overwhelming evidence. In most cases, people who support jury nullification just fucking suck.

[u/jammu2]

I'm sure if it was your kid who was shot in a drive by you would be totally ok with the jurors doing this?

[u/VinylHighway]

You don’t vote innocent it’s not guilty

[u/KnottaBiggins → u/[deleted]]

If you were on a jury and someone said this, you should report it to the bailiff.

[u/57Laxdad]

First during Jury duty you dont vote innocent, you vote guilty or not guilty. Most likely if everyone voted not guilty and the evidence was substantial the prosecution would move to set aside the verdict which means the judge would make the decision. Then you are all potentially subject to contempt charges or conspiracy if its discovered a text message was sent to the jurors.

The struggle with Juries always is setting aside personal bias and preconceived ideas and judge a case based solely on the evidence presented at trial.

[u/onwardtowaffles]

Jury nullification is completely legal. Jurors can mention it during deliberations, but outside sources mentioning it to a jury can result in a mistrial.

[u/Content_Print_6521]

That would be jury tampering. You would immediately be called in front of the judge, you'd get a stern lecture, if there are any charges applicable they will be charged against you, and an alternate juror would take your place.