Jury instructions

rickybutcher

Can a jury convict a person if they believe:

a - the evidence proves a person was in a certain place at a certain time.

b - that the defendent denying their presence there and offering no other explanation for their presence implies guilt?

Is that enough to convict somebody of a crime?

GerardKeating

rickybutcher wrote:

Can a jury convict a person if they believe:

a - the evidence proves a person was in a certain place at a certain time.

b - that the defendent denying their presence there and offering no other explanation for their presence implies guilt?

Is that enough to convict somebody of a crime?

The jury must belive the person guilt "beyond a resonable doubt", but the Jury does not have to explain how it come to the verdict.

In THeory, if there is not eneough evidence, the Judge could dismiss the case or direct the jury to return an innocent verdict.

Wishbone Ash

GerardKeating wrote:

direct the jury to return an innocent verdict.

Apologies for being pedantic but the jury cannot return an "innocent" verdict but they can return a "not guilty" verdict. The defendant is always deemed innocent unless proven guilty.

seamus

The jury's role is to listen to all of the evidence, and determine whether or not the prosecution have shown, beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendent is guilty. That is, if the jury believes that there is reaosnable doubt of someone's guilt, then they may determine that the defendent is not guilty, even if there is overwhelming evidence to say otherwise.

Whether your situation is sufficient to convict someone is unknown. One jury may decide guilty, another may decide "not guilty".

It's also worth noting that "evidence" is rarely open and shut. A lot of evidence such as forensic evidence, technical evidence, DNA evidence, aren't fact, but rather the firm opinion of an expert in the field, that the evidence they have collected places the defendent at (or not at) the scence of the crime. There's no machine, for example, that they insert two drops of blood into, and five seconds later receive back a big flashing sign saying "POSITIVE MATCH", despite what the TV says. In reality, an expert looks over the DNA traces and makes matches, and then a judgement based on his expert opinion.

Experts can and do get it wrong, place people incorrectly at the scene of crimes, and then testify so in court. This is why the jury is critical.

Jo King

rickybutcher wrote:

Can a jury convict a person if they believe:

a - the evidence proves a person was in a certain place at a certain time.

b - that the defendent denying their presence there and offering no other explanation for their presence implies guilt?

Is that enough to convict somebody of a crime?

Where a person was at a particular time is simply circumstantial evidence. If a person can show they were not present at the place where the crime was committed at the time the crime was committed it is pretty strong evidence of the fact that they did not commit the crime. The converse is not true. A person may be at the place where a crime was committed but not have committed it.
Circumstantial evidence depends for its probative value on the number of possibilities it eliminates. A crime committed by somebody who was in Croke Park on All Ireland final day is hardly solved by finding some who was in Croke Park on that day.
A person may have reasons of their own for lying but they have a credibility problem. People who lie about one issue may well lie about others. A jury is entitled to decide waht they believ and waht the implications are. The judge in his summing up will say " if you believe X and Y are true then you must find Z is true. If you believe Z and H are true then ..... the jury therefore find the facts of the case and then follow the directions given to them by the judge and thus reach their verdict.

johnnyskeleton

rickybutcher wrote:

Can a jury convict a person if they believe:

a - the evidence proves a person was in a certain place at a certain time.

There is no crime of being at a certain place at a certain time on its own, but coupled with something else - for example being a tresspasser and intending to commit a serious offence, or being in a place contrary to a previous barring order can be an offence. So if a jury believes a person was in a certain place at a certain time, that might prove one element of an offence but more is needed for a conviction.

rickybutcher wrote:

b - that the defendent denying their presence there and offering no other explanation for their presence implies guilt?

Is that enough to convict somebody of a crime?

If they deny their presence it would be a bit contradictory to also offer an explaination for their presence. So logically if someone denys their presence in a place they are not also going to say that they were there to read bedtime stories to sick orphans.

If you are asking, to take an example, if a girl complains that she took a man home and he raped her, the man denys that he went home with her (and that he ever went home with her), and there are several independent witnesses who state that he was there, there is dna and fingerprint evidence that he was there and also cctv footage, and the jury believe beyond reasonable doubt that he did go home with her on that night, it is still not enough for them to convict. They must still be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he had sexual intercourse with the girl without her consent, and he knew (or was reckless) as to her lack of consent. They might believe that he was in her house, but not be certain about her evidence. Moreover, just because they don't believe him, it does not mean that they would automatically believe her. In a scenario where the jury believes that everyone is lying, they must acquit.

Our man in Havana

Side issue: Say a judge directs the jury to return a not guilty verdict, can the jury simply ignore the judge and find the defendant guilty?

seamus

Bond-007 wrote:

Side issue: Say a judge directs the jury to return a not guilty verdict, can the jury simply ignore the judge and find the defendant guilty?

In certain states in the U.S., that is definitely the case. There are documented cases from there of Judges directing the jury to find the defendent guilty of a certain charge (say manslaughter), only for the jury to come back out and let the guy off scott free.

I'm not sure what the story is over here.

Rhonda9000

seamus wrote:

In certain states in the U.S., that is definitely the case. There are documented cases from there of Judges directing the jury to find the defendent guilty of a certain charge (say manslaughter), only for the jury to come back out and let the guy off scott free.

I'm not sure what the story is over here.

Perverse verdicts also happen here.

Rhonda9000

Bond-007 wrote:

Side issue: Say a judge directs the jury to return a not guilty verdict, can the jury simply ignore the judge and find the defendant guilty?

I immediately thought that the jury's decision is entirely free, even if it's very weird like convicting contrary to a direction to find not guilty. Did McDowell have some Bill in the pipeline re. perverse verdicts? I need to start paying better attention!

This is interesting:

"While supporters argue that jury nullification can be used only to acquit and not to convict because a judge must set aside a conviction that is clearly at odds with the law and the facts, the fact that jury verdicts are treated with great deference in United States courts means that the safeguards are not absolute and a jury that dislikes a defendant has the ability to convict an innocent defendant through nullification. Jury nullification may also occur in civil suits, in which this distinction between acquittal and conviction is of course irrelevant."

Thats from wikipedia --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

I wonder what the situation is in Ireland- I've never come across any case law, only the regular "you're clearly guilty as defined by the law and facts but we are finding you not-guilty anyway" perverse verdicts.

rickybutcher

Thanks for the replies. There was an example in the media very recently, and reading a report of judges instructions in that case, the answer to the question is unequivocally YES.

The jury in a case can decide a defendant told a lie in relation to his or her whereabouts and infer from that that the defendant did so because they were guilty of a crime.

johnnyskeleton

Bond007 wrote:

Side issue: Say a judge directs the jury to return a not guilty verdict, can the jury simply ignore the judge and find the defendant guilty?

Yes but it would be overturned on appeal. Juries are not often directed to find not guilty - if there is insufficent evidence then it would normally be withdrawn, and where a person is obviously not guilty it would be unusual for a jury to decide to convict for some other reason. Also, juries tend to listen to what they are told by a judge.

seamus wrote:

In certain states in the U.S., that is definitely the case. There are documented cases from there of Judges directing the jury to find the defendent guilty of a certain charge (say manslaughter), only for the jury to come back out and let the guy off scott free.

I'm not sure what the story is over here.

A jury cannot be directed to find someone guilty, they can only be directed to find someone not guilty (Nally appeal).

rickybutcher wrote:

Thanks for the replies. There was an example in the media very recently, and reading a report of judges instructions in that case, the answer to the question is unequivocally YES.

The jury in a case can decide a defendant told a lie in relation to his or her whereabouts and infer from that that the defendant did so because they were guilty of a crime.

They can refuse to accept an alibi, but they still must accept prosecution evidence that shows they did commit an offence. I might lie about my whereabout, that does not mean I committed some random offence. A jury could say "I don't believe he was at the opera at the time, but I don't believe he was at the scene either".

Armin_Tamzarian

How many members of the jury need to vote Guilty in order for a person to be convicted?

Do they all have to agree or is 7 / 12 enough?

Our man in Havana

They will accept a majority verdict sometimes but it must be at least 10-2.

johnnyskeleton

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

How many members of the jury need to vote Guilty in order for a person to be convicted?

Do they all have to agree or is 7 / 12 enough?

A jury has to be charged that they can only bring in a verdict on which they are all agreed (whether it be guilty, not guilty, or one of the other less common verdicts such as guilty but insane or guilty of a lesser offence).

After 2 hours a trial judge has a discretion to allow them to bring in a majority verdict of 11-1, 10-2, or 10-1 if one of the jurors has been dismissed mid trial.

Anything other than that results in a hung jury.

panda142

Jury Nullification is basically when a jury returns a verdict of not guilty, even though they are sure beyond all reasonable doubt of the persons guilt. I think this is what someone is referring to up there.

This can occur in situations;
where the jury does not believe that the act should be proscribed
where the jury beleived that the punishment is too extreme
where the jury is convinced that there are circumstances that make punishment appropriate in a particular case

Thoie

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Juries are not often directed to find not guilty - if there is insufficent evidence then it would normally be withdrawn, and where a person is obviously not guilty it would be unusual for a jury to decide to convict for some other reason. Also, juries tend to listen to what they are told by a judge.

You sometimes read in the papers "a judge directed a jury to" acquit him/find him not guilty. The usual explanation for this is that the judge has considered all the evidence and decided (using his legal knowledge and experience) that there isn't enough evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

What if all twelve members of the jury, having heard the evidence and fully grasping its meaning, think that there is enough evidence to find someone guilty? Can they disagree with the judge and return a guilty verdict anyway? What would happen if they did? If the judge can overturn the verdict anyway, what's the point in having the jury there to start with?

Our man in Havana

It would certainly cause an appeal.