Prosecutors can sometimes get away with misconduct as it is extremely difficult to prove that misconduct had actually taken place. Often times the prosecutor is viewed as being on the side of justice and as a result it is difficult for the defendant (who is accused of a crime) to turn the tide against the prosecution. Although during the trial both the defense as well as the judge may report a prosecutor for misconduct, this rarely happens as these reports are often dismissed. This is because as long as the prosecutions misconduct does not affect the outcome of the case, then it is tolerated, meaning that a prosecutor can harass a witness or the defendant so long as the harassment did not have anything to do with the outcome of the trial. The fact that the prosecutor works in the interests of the state can be seen as the underlying factor here.
Aside from the verdict from the Hinckley trial, the public’s view on the insanity defense is not altogether accurate. There’s a misconception that criminals who use this type of reasoning as a plea can evade punishment. When it comes to the use of the insanity defense, only about one percent of criminals use this type of justification. By using the insanity defense, the criminal is admitting they are guilty of the crime however they are requesting a not guilty verdict based on the state of mind they were in at the time of the crime. This can get tricky for a defendant because if not proven mentally ill, they will be found guilty and usually endure a harsher sentencing for the crime.
Whether or not this man was punished and remained in jail was up to the prosecution. Heffernan’s critical decision would be whether or not to remove his thoughts on morality from his professional decision. The defendant had a legal right to a jury trial and a moral right to have it vindicated. Since the judge had refused to instruct the jury concerning the justifiable use of deadly force, the defendant had been denied that right. Heffernan was faced with whether
Also in question if jury nullification challenges the statute of the law when making a decision to acquit the defendant on how the jury feels fit on the punishment of the defendant and the law. Past criminal trials have made headlines and the jury’s verdict in question. This allows society to lose faith in the criminal justice system and affect future trials. Jury nullification decides the fate of a defendant and questioning if the jury-based the decision on race should not be an issue. For race-based jury nullification Race-based nullification is not promoted as a positive thing all the time but evening out races throughout a jury may influence the verdict.
Ultimately, the facts and arguments should be examined on both sides so that a decision can be made on whether to keep jury nullification the same or whether it is in the nation’s best interest to change it by either limiting it in some way or abolishing it completely. Jury nullification defined in the legal dictionary, is the acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact. In simpler terms it is when a jury refuses to convict a defendant because the law is being unfair. It is a very rare situation when a jury nullifies itself. It is said to happen in about three or four percent of criminal cases that go to trial.
Since juror #9 doesn’t trust police office to will good for Mr. Acquit’s. The judge can ask Mr. Acquit to force a prima facie case. The judge can put on the record that
Many words do not have the same meaning now as they did in 1861 and some words are no longer used or have a specialist legal meaning. An example of this is the word 'malicious', as a layman would define the word as meaning evil or wicked, whereas a lawyer would define the word as meaning specific intention or subjective recklessness (Parmenter 1991). Some words and phrases do not describe what they mean, for example, in ABH 'actual' suggests any harm whereas, in fact, it does not include serious harm. 'Bodily' would seem to exclude mental harm, but in Chan Fook (1993) the court included it. All of these reasons have meant that Lawyers and Juries have struggled to understand the complexity or the different offences.