Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

[pErvinalia]

I thought in some jurisdictions the judge could tell a jury how they should decide. Or perhaps overrule the jury's verdict.

edit: actually it says effectively this in the article: "Last week the judge told the jury to dismiss two of the six charges..."

Without knowing the specifics of the case, I obviously can't say; but the defendant sounds like a dodgy cunt who got off on a technicality. If that was the case, and could be objectively shown, then I have no problem with the judge making a comment in the course of the court proceedings. As I said, let's remember who the likely real victim is here.

The judge can dismiss charges during a case for a variety of legitimate reasons, from jurisdiction to delay. But he can neither influence the jury, nor overturn their decision.

With the unfettered approach to law you suffer, justice stops being blond, and becomes very focussed indeed. In other words, judges become political, and in fact, justice evaporates.

Well, not quite. A judge can always ACQUIT a defendant over a jury verdict of guilty. This is in place so that a judge can overrule a jury when he sees a miscarriage of justice occurring. But a judge CANNOT overturn a verdict of not guilty. Once a jury has handed down a not guilty verdict the trial is over at that moment and the defendant is free to leave, and cannot be tried again on the same charges.

And "justice stops being blond?" You been watching "Legally Blonde" too much? I can't blame you, Reese is way hot.

Yeah, and what you say above is how I understood it. As I said originally, perhaps it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

[charlou]

Not exactly. She could be mistaken. Her recollection could be faulty. She could be honestly pointing the finger at one guy when it really was another - i.e. she could have been raped, but by someone else. Under many many circumstances, she could be trying to be honest, but wrong. And, of course, sometimes people lie.

It's not like other crimes, if someone is found innocent of murder in most cases no one is going to say a murder didnt take place (a successful self defence please is incredibly rare here) just that the person on trial didnt do it.

In the case of rape its going to be rare for someone to say sex didnt happen and rare for the victim to not be able to identify the attacker, its almost always comes down to consent, if the accused is found innocent the victim consented is the only reasonable thing to draw from it and hence no crime took place at all.

It's one of the reasons women often don't want to go to court, the only real evidence is going to be their statement and that of the accused, one will be believed and the other won't

No, that's why it IS like other cases.

What kind of system would you want? A system where an accuser can point the finger with no evidence but his own testimony, and that is sufficient to convict?

A murder is not a consent crime-- murder is essentially 'the unjustified, unexcused killing of another human being with malice aforethought (intent or recklessness)" - a rape is sexual intercourse without consent. So, saying "sexual intercourse never happened" is one defense, but so is -- "yes we did have sex, but she expressed what I reasonably interpreted to be consent."

On the issue of consent, you say that if the jury acquits then they are saying that she consented. No, they're not. Like any other crime, they're saying that the particular element of the crime could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. They're saying they have reasonable doubts. Having reasonable doubts is not the same thing as saying "she consented."

Another way to look at it is that the jury can even be of the mind that she "probably" did not consent, but they would still have to acquit if they could not erase all "reasonable" doubts. i.e. -- something might have "probably" happened, but one may still find that it may not have happened and that the doubt about whether it did happen is "reasonable." Reasonable does not mean that they have to find the defendant's story is more probable than the accuser's story. Reasonable just means that there is a significant possibility.

Thoughtful post on the important distinction of reasonable doubt.

[Cormac]

Cormac wrote:

...justice stops being blond...

Oops.

[Pappa]

Double jeopardy no longer applies in all cases in Ireland or England/Wales. (Scotland hs a different legal system, so I've no idea about Scotland).

That's EXACTLY WHY the US has the double-jeopardy rule, because prior to the Revolution, King George would have someone arrested and tried, only to have them acquitted by a jury...to the displeasure of His Majesty and his minions, so they would just pick a new jury and give it another go, and they would continue to try the individual until they found a jury that WOULD convict him.

We put the no double-jeopardy rule in out Constitution expressly to prevent that sort of thing. The prosecution gets ONE and ONLY ONE shot at convicting you on the evidence. Mistrials and appeals not included.

Both Ireland and England/Wales had double/jeopardy rules until fairly recently, but they were "adjusted". I'm not sure to what extent.

There has to be compelling new evidence that wasn't available in the first trial or the CPS won't proceed.

[Cormac]

Double jeopardy no longer applies in all cases in Ireland or England/Wales. (Scotland hs a different legal system, so I've no idea about Scotland).

That's EXACTLY WHY the US has the double-jeopardy rule, because prior to the Revolution, King George would have someone arrested and tried, only to have them acquitted by a jury...to the displeasure of His Majesty and his minions, so they would just pick a new jury and give it another go, and they would continue to try the individual until they found a jury that WOULD convict him.

We put the no double-jeopardy rule in out Constitution expressly to prevent that sort of thing. The prosecution gets ONE and ONLY ONE shot at convicting you on the evidence. Mistrials and appeals not included.

Both Ireland and England/Wales had double/jeopardy rules until fairly recently, but they were "adjusted". I'm not sure to what extent.

There has to be compelling new evidence that wasn't available in the first trial or the CPS won't proceed.

Wikipedia head chapter and verse on it. Not a bad exposition actually.

[MrJonno]

The whole jury system is an abomination anyway and most democracies don't use it, I trust a random bunch of 12 untrained members of the public to decide someone fate about as much as I trust them to carry a gun.

Comes from a time when people feared the government more than the public, I will the public far far more

[MrJonno]

n the issue of consent, you say that if the jury acquits then they are saying that she consented. No, they're not. Like any other crime, they're saying that the particular element of the crime could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. They're saying they have reasonable doubts. Having reasonable doubts is not the same thing as saying "she consented."

Another way to look at it is that the jury can even be of the mind that she "probably" did not consent, but they would still have to acquit if they could not erase all "reasonable" doubts. i.e. -- something might have "probably" happened, but one may still find that it may not have happened and that the doubt about whether it did happen is "reasonable." Reasonable does not mean that they have to find the defendant's story is more probable than the accuser's story. Reasonable just means that there is a significant possibility.

Those are legal technicalities in the real world if a man is found innocent of rape the world will see the woman as a lying bitch

[Clinton Huxley]

The whole jury system is an abomination anyway and most democracies don't use it, I trust a random bunch of 12 untrained members of the public to decide someone fate about as much as I trust them to carry a gun.

Comes from a time when people feared the government more than the public, I will the public far far more

Mmmm...the Home Secretary should just decide whether someone is guilty or not....

[pErvinalia]

The whole jury system is an abomination anyway and most democracies don't use it, I trust a random bunch of 12 untrained members of the public to decide someone fate about as much as I trust them to carry a gun.

Comes from a time when people feared the government more than the public, I will the public far far more

yeah, I don't think it's a very good idea. Guilt should be judged by people who understand the law.

[MrJonno]

The whole jury system is an abomination anyway and most democracies don't use it, I trust a random bunch of 12 untrained members of the public to decide someone fate about as much as I trust them to carry a gun.

Comes from a time when people feared the government more than the public, I will the public far far more

yeah, I don't think it's a very good idea. Guilt should be judged by people who understand the law.

I was thinking more that guilt should be determined by people that have a good understanding of the language the trial is in, understand to reasonable level maths, science and actually have the ability to concentrate on something extremely serious for hours on end. That counts out the majority of the public

[Svartalf]

As proven in this thread many juries are not fit to decide what's for breakfast...

[mistermack]

One thing about juries is that they don't get the chance to get chummy with prosecutors, or defence lawyers, unlike judges and magistrates.

I was once convicted in a magistrates court on unbelieveably contrary evidence. When they stood up to retire, I thought there was no possible way they could convict me on the evidence, but I caught just the SLIGHTEST of nods, that went from the leading magistrate to the prosecutor.

They came back after ten minutes and said guilty. My lawyer couldn't believe it.
I appealed immediately, and got a quick appeal because of a cancellation.

The judge threw the case out less than a quarter of the way through.
Basically, when you have permanent people doing the job, they get bent by relationships.

That's not to say that juries are perfect either, just that the alternative has many flaws.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think what Devogue and others are saying is right, but in this case I'm having trouble drumming up much sympathy for the guy. Sounds like he was a sick fucker who got off on a technicality. This is low on my list of things to get fired up about these days.

...demonstrating precisely why judges should not make comments that undermine the finding of a jury in their own court.

Agreed in principle, but what of the quoted material -- what the judge actually said - undermines the finding of the jury?

On my reading of it, (and noting that the article was from the Daily Fail*), the judge effectively said thatthe jury were unable to convict on a technicality, but that he, the judge, believed that the defendat was guilty. This was after a jury had taken just 29 minutes to produce a not guilty verdict.

I don't think the judge literally said that. You may be reading into what he wrote, but it seems to me all the judge said is exactly what lawyers learn in law school Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure courses.

Not guilty doesn't mean innocent.

In making this comment, he undermines the law, and indeed the judicial system, by:

1. Implying that technical issues are not a valid route to exhoneration. He implies that such judgements are a matter of a knowing nudge and a wink.
2. He effectively declared that the jury was wrong - something he is only entitled to do if the jury made a technical error themselves, or were corrupted in some way.
3. He also denied the exhinerated the right to his unsullied reputation, to which he is entitled. It is bad enough being falsely accused, but to have such accusations restated immediately after have being found not guilty, and then by the trial judge is a denial of justice.

(In my view).


*...and therefore inclined to ridicule judges, and to deny any relief to those falsely accused of any crime at all

I didn't read the judge's comments that way. But, I tend to interpret such things more literally than a lot of people.

[Svartalf]

One thing about juries is that they don't get the chance to get chummy with prosecutors, or defence lawyers, unlike judges and magistrates.

I was once convicted in a magistrates court on unbelieveably contrary evidence. When they stood up to retire, I thought there was no possible way they could convict me on the evidence, but I caught just the SLIGHTEST of nods, that went from the leading magistrate to the prosecutor.

They came back after ten minutes and said guilty. My lawyer couldn't believe it.
I appealed immediately, and got a quick appeal because of a cancellation.

The judge threw the case out less than a quarter of the way through.
Basically, when you have permanent people doing the job, they get bent by relationships.

That's not to say that juries are perfect either, just that the alternative has many flaws.

I still prefer judges that are law professionals to the American elected ones, whose competence and dedication to anything else than the next election is often doubtful.

[mistermack]

I still prefer judges that are law professionals to the American elected ones, whose competence and dedication to anything else than the next election is often doubtful.

Me too, times ten.
Having elections to law jobs is just ludicrous.