Juries

[Alpha Sierra]

The other thing to consider is there's all kinds of justice in this world........ I've seen karma catch up with a few of these guys and it hasn't been pretty.

This option needs to be on the table

[TR675]

This option needs to be on the table

We still talking karma here or have we moved over to vigilante justice?

[HCM]

We still talking karma here or have we moved over to vigilante justice?

I was referring to karma, for example:

One of our task force duties was assisting with enforcement of sex offender registration laws. Through the probation officer assigned to us, we learned of a career criminal currently on felony probation who had been convicted of a sex offense against a child a decade earlier. Though the subject had served state prison time for this offense, he had never been properly served notice of his requirement to register as a sex offender. Proper notification of registration requirements is a pre- requisite for prosecution for failure to register, so we sent the subject proper notice via certified mail.

Being a "good" crook, the subject wasn't about to sign for anything in his "goverment name". Instead , he told the postman to return the certified letter because the addressee (actually himself) was deceased.

A few days later, the certified letter marked return to sender/ deceased arrived at our office, which was downtown, near the Union Pacific tracks. The few days after receiving the letter back, we got stuck in a big traffic jam resulting from a fatal train vs motor vehicle accident about two miles from our office. Come to find out our subject, who thought he was being cute marking "deceased" on our letter was struck and killed by a freight train as he tried to go around the RR gates in his El Dorado.

[Corey]

Karma (or irony) doesn't get much better than that.

[trailrunner]

I've served on several juries. One was a minor drug bust. To me, it was black and white, 100 percent a sure thing that he was guilty. He had even signed a confession on the back of a hard copy of his Miranda rights (which he tried to denounce on the witness stand). What amazed me was that when we got to the jury room, some people thought that he could be innocent. They took the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" so so far that they were interpreting it as if they had *any* doubt, no matter how small, then we should not convict him.

Common sense eventually won out. I thought I was done, but then the judge sent us back to decide on his sentence. That's the way they do it in Virginia, and I really think that was a mistake. I have very little contact with the criminal justice system, so I had absolutely no basis, no context, and no history for determining what his sentence should have been. This was a relatively minor, victimless crime, so I didn't have the passion that I would against a sex offender or murderer. The judge give us the minimum and maximums, but they were pretty broad and didn't help us much.

[RoyGBiv]

Thanks to all for your comments. I spent the day yesterday with family & friends but found myself cheking in here when I found myself feeling bad. I've started moving on from feeling responsible, to moving the blame to those that fail to recognize true evil, even when staring him in the face, even when listening to the words of his victims. I hold no hope for the rehabilitation of this monster. The best use he could have is as a warning to others who would steal and abuse our children. Maybe that makes me hard-hearted, I don't know. But I'm starting to believe that I did the best I could do given the circumstances.

I have served on a jury in a case involving repeated, prolonged sexual assault of a minor (we sent him up the river for 40 years).
<snip>
In the case I served on as a petit juror, we had 10 jurors who wanted to convict and two for acquittal. We argued with them until they changed their minds. They then wanted probation for the defendant. We wore them down until they agreed to 40 years. Maybe I would have sought more in different circumstances. 40 is what was doable.

Thanks very much for such a specific reference.

Having spent four years working on a sex offender task force, I fully agree with you regarding the rehabilitation prospects for sexual predators who victimize children i.e. they are nonexistent.

I was surprised to find anyone (jury members) that did not possess this knowledge. I was wishing for the ability to do one Google search, just one. Big no-no.

Next time you're losing sleep over the sentencing in this case, think about the "hate discipline" required on the part of LEOs to bring one of "those people" in in one piece.

I have a new appreciation for this. LEO's have the hope of a jury assigning a proper punishment, but I suppose that's countered by a justice system that often fails at the job.

Again... Thanks all.

[RoyGBiv]

As a criminal defense lawyer in Texas, I am baffled and a little perplexed at when or why a sitting judge would make a comment about a sentence "passing muster". There is no "approval" of a jury verdict, if the defendant opted for jury sentencing, the jury sentence controls.

He did indeed opt for a jury sentence, that was made clear to us before trial began.

As for "passing muster", I don't recall the exact comment, but it was brief and off-hand. Thinking back again now, he may have been referring to a time in the future when the parole board is tasked with reviewing the case. Regardless, I suspect I was the only one that took notice and the comment (whatever it was) was made after sentencing had been handed down. It certainly had no affect on the decisions of the jury.

The nature of his offense controls his parole eligibility, given what you describe it is likely a "3g" offense and he will have to serve a long chunk before eligibility, and it is only eligibility, not a guarantee of parole. Bad conduct in prison and he will serve the entire sentence flat.

Is this a correct understanding of "3G"? http://www.stephenfosterlaw.com/criminal/3g-offenses
If so, it explains why there was no plea bargain (30 year minimum for Aggravated Kidnapping.)

I assume that it is verboten to include this information in any instructions to the jury? We certainly did not receive any such instruction. I'm sitting here weighing whether the knowledge that he could not get less than 30 years on a plea deal would have had any resonance with the jurors. Who am I kidding? Of course it would have. Just when I was starting to feel a bit better. (insert painful laughing smiley here).

I would have appreciated being told after sentencing, at least, that the perp was going to spend at least 30 years behind bars (our sentence was longer). And I take some solace in the knowledge that this monster decided to roll the dice and wound up not coming out ahead.

Thanks.!

[RoyGBiv]

Is this a correct understanding of "3G"? http://www.stephenfosterlaw.com/criminal/3g-offenses

Hmmmm.... This seems to indicate that the minimum-time-served number is 15 years. Maybe I'm reading it wrong? (bottom of last page) (perp had no priors)
http://www.texascjc.org/sites/defaul...ne_2012%29.pdf

[Ray Keith]

The jury is not to consider parole issues in assessing sentence. Life without parole is obviously different, but that is available only as an option to the death penalty in a capital case. A judge should make no mention of it for a jury considering sentence. Again it is parole eligibility, not parole. Parole boards don't act in isolation, they have access to the original offense, conduct of the offender good or bad, the victim's family is generally kept in the loop by the D.A. in serious cases. The legislature provides a range of punishment for various offenses, we trust juries to make wise decisions based on the evidence they have. Murder (an intentional killing) carries a wide range in Texas, 5-99 or life. Capital murder only two, life without parole or death. If juries max every sentence we have a problem, if juries gut every sentence we have a problem. Jury trial in Texas is pretty sacred turf, moreso than many other states. The peanut gallery can attack you or any other juror doing their duty, but they don't know what you know, perhaps nothing more than what the media told them. IMO the system works when jurors honestly do their job without a preconceived notion of what is or is not justice, but decide the case before them based on evidence. If you fairly considered the evidence you had, and sought to do the right thing based on your beliefs, afforded the other jurors to act on the evidence based on their beliefs, I wouldn't lose a moments sleep, you did exactly what you were supposed to.

He did indeed opt for a jury sentence, that was made clear to us before trial began.

As for "passing muster", I don't recall the exact comment, but it was brief and off-hand. Thinking back again now, he may have been referring to a time in the future when the parole board is tasked with reviewing the case. Regardless, I suspect I was the only one that took notice and the comment (whatever it was) was made after sentencing had been handed down. It certainly had no affect on the decisions of the jury.


Is this a correct understanding of "3G"? http://www.stephenfosterlaw.com/criminal/3g-offenses
If so, it explains why there was no plea bargain (30 year minimum for Aggravated Kidnapping.)

I assume that it is verboten to include this information in any instructions to the jury? We certainly did not receive any such instruction. I'm sitting here weighing whether the knowledge that he could not get less than 30 years on a plea deal would have had any resonance with the jurors. Who am I kidding? Of course it would have. Just when I was starting to feel a bit better. (insert painful laughing smiley here).

I would have appreciated being told after sentencing, at least, that the perp was going to spend at least 30 years behind bars (our sentence was longer). And I take some solace in the knowledge that this monster decided to roll the dice and wound up not coming out ahead.

Thanks.!