The disadvantage of the unanimous verdict requirement is further exacerbated by the potential for guilty defendants being found not guilty simply because one juror decides to hold out on a guilty vote. This possibility can be played out under any number of scenarios; i.e., the hold-out juror is hoping for a guilty verdict on a lesser charge, or decides he or she cannot bring themself to follow through on a vote that could cost someone their life or freedom. In the Apodaca v. Oregon decision, the Court stated that the key question is whether a nonunanimous jury can fulfill the essential function of the jury. With their decision, the Court declared that it could, at least in state trials where the death penalty was not an option. Unanimous verdicts remain requirements in federal criminal trials.
If a jury fails or refuses to convict a defendant in a criminal trial even though there if proof of guilt, jury nullification takes place. This is because the jury believes the law is being biased or unjust. If jury nullification is used in an honest and appropriate manner, it is likely to favor minorities in the courtroom in terms of sentencing for the crime committed as opposed to it being based on race. Most people that are picked to be on a jury do not know about jury nullification. A jury, juror, or judge can nullify a case in almost any
Many decisions pertaining to a case going to trial and how actively they pursue the case are left up to prosecutors and how they view the evidence and what the evidence means to them. This can be described as prosecutorial discretion. How does this affect the prosecutor and overall case flow in the criminal court system? Prosecutorial discretion puts an abundance of pressure on the prosecutors and their roles in the courts. The prosecution must without a reasonable doubt prove the defendant is responsible for committing the crime.
The prosecution, the judge and the defendant all benefit when defense counsel performs in the way the Constitution envisions. The broken public defense system in our State doesn't have to be like this. It can and must be fixed. As a result of these deficiencies, many individuals facing criminal charges are compelled to appear in court without a lawyer at critical junctures, such as when bail decisions are made. This often results in unnecessary or excessive bail being set and keeps people who cannot afford it in jail awaiting trial Many public defense lawyers also fail to: meet or consult with clients at critical stages in their cases; investigate the charges against their clients or hire experts who can assist with case preparation or testify at trial; file necessary pre-trial motions; and provide meaningful consultation before clients accept plea bargains, regardless of whether a charge is appropriate or a viable defense exists.
Injustice in the Judicial System When the criminal court system was established its intent was to punish the guilty in a humane way and to set the innocent free. From personal experience I have learned that the court system is not about innocence or guilt. The court system is about whom you know and money, usually forcing most people into an involuntary plea. In “Criminal Justice,” it states that, “ the most important real - world fact about our criminal justice system is that a person accused of crimes enjoy no advantages, no matter how many rights the courts and legislatures have apportioned them. For the overwhelming majority of cases, they have no opportunity to exercise any of their rights- instead , these right are plea-bargained away” (64) First of all if you don’t have friends in high places i.e.
James Wetzel CRMJ 101-52 Online Jury Nullification-Article 1 Jury Nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict against the proof of guilt because the jurors believe the law to be unjust or unjustly applied. As a result, the defendant is declared innocent, or is given a lesser penalty, even though without an act of jury nullification they would have been found guilty. While this all seems great, jury nullification is a source of much debate in today’s society. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard or last resort again the wrongful punishment and imprisonment. While others often view it as a violation of the right of a jury and undermining that law.
The adversary system is a system where there are two opposing sides in a court room, the prosecution and the defense. Both sides are trying to convince an impartial person, such as a judge or jury that there side can prove the other side as being wrong in order to prove guilt or innocence of the accused offender. The reason we use this system is to provide a fair and impartial trial. Instead of just presenting the evidence against the defendant, which would be partial and one sided, since the defendant would not get to defend them self. The adversary system is a much needed way for all societies to have their judicial and criminal justice system.
This is shown in an article written by Justice Kevin Duggan in the Sydney Morning Herald (July 25, 2011) where he states that “criminal cases are becoming too complicated for juries”. Further to this, not only do juries struggle due to technology, but may also not understand key and extremely basic legal terms such as “beyond reasonable doubt” according to a report by BOCSAR in 2011. However, as the Jury Amendment (Verdicts) Act 2006 brought in laws accepting majority verdicts (11-1), it does question the notion of “beyond reasonable doubt”. In addition, the use of expert witnesses can also create difficulties for jurors when assessing evidence as it may be overpowering which may cause some jurors to not consider future evidence, as seen in the Gordon Wood case regarding Professor Cross, who was an expert witness on physics for the
The advantage of this system is that the firm’s lawyers quickly become proficient in dealing with the prosecutor and the courtroom work group. Opponents of this system contend that because of the competitive bidding process, the low bidder end up with a caseload that does not provide enough revenue for the support system of secretaries, investigators, and attorneys that is necessary for vigorous defense of all
The development of rational policies in criminal justice is complicated by conflicting values—our commitment to due process of law and our determination to fight crime. Public opinion has long held that the court system is overly concerned with the rights of accused criminals. A majority of Americans believe that the Supreme Court has gone too far in protecting the rights of defendants in criminal cases and that the courts are more concerned with protecting these rights than the rights of victims. Yet although society needs the protection of the police, it is equally important to protect society from the police. Arbitrary searches, seizures, and arrests; imprisonment without hearing or trial; forced confessions; beatings and torture; tainted