Big Time Moral Dilemma.

Post Reply New Topic

I just finished serving on a jury for the trial of someone who was in possession of 3/4 gram methamphetamine and paraphernalia, including a syringe. He plead not guilty because he rejected the amount of time on the plea bargain and we gave him the lesser time because it was a small amount and we thought he was a drug addict with a really low IQ and some of the jurors didn't want him a lengthy prison stay at $22,000 + dollars a year.

We all thought we were deciding the sentence of a man who probably had a few drug convictions, maybe burglary and at the worst, a possible assault of some kind though we were not allowed to know anything before or during the trial except the evidence that was relevant to the charges the trial was for.

So, after the trial is over and we determined the sentence and all that, the judge chatted with us before she dismissed us and we found out he did time for a murder conviction but she forgot if it was first or second degree so this one woman assumed it was manslaughter.

The trial was super short, only lasted one day because it was very easy and he just wanted to see if a jury would give him a lighter sentence what with the shortfalls in budgets and this state keeping non violent offenders too long, prison overcrowding, and he didn't have any shackles or handcuffs and the witnesses said he wasn't aggressive or violent, or resisted arrest. He was fully cooperative, so we thought he was the typical non violent offender so we were set to go with the minimum time because of this. So there were only 3 actual in-person witnesses and nothing but direct evidence and it was obvious he had possession of the two items even though he plead not guilty. We didn't have any trouble reaching conclusions while deliberating so the trial was really short compared to most.

Of course, when I got home I googled his name out of curiosity and found out he was actually charged with first degree murder but there was some confusion and he tried to appeal it because he claimed he didn't know what he was plead guilty, to. His lawyer wouldn't respond to his collect calls from jail and his mother wouldn't communicate his desire to change his plea within the time limits due to fear he might get a death sentence. So I have no idea if he was really innocent, just had a low IQ and they wanted to just put him somewhere or if he was really guilty and just trying to get his time reduced by appealing.

So years later, he tries to appeal because he didn't understand what was happening and he had faulty counsel, he claimed, but the appeals were denied.

He was eventually paroled and now this trial. He has a suspended sentence for domestic violence after he was paroled and during his first prison sentence he escaped and got more time for that.

So what do you all think of this? Do you think the prior conviction of first degree murder should have influenced this sentence or is all this up to the judge, not us, the jury. I think we did a good job but I do wonder if some of the other jurors, which I am sure they have researched later same as I, will have anxiety and regret after finding all this out.

I have faith in the judge and do not think we were faulty at all.

You did your job and you did fine.

What you later found out were the holes in the legal system that to me, make the entire thing bogus. But back to your task, sounds like you did very well and considered all of what you were to look at in making a determination.

Kick back and relax. No worries!

I'm firmly of the opinion that the jurors should be able to ask any pertinent questions including about prior convictions and expect to be given honest answers. They should also be told about any and all prior convictions.

One thing I've seen here is a defendant plead guilty but ask for a jury trial to determine the sentence. One 28 year old man did that a couple of years ago when he was charged with having sex with his 14 year old girlfriend. The judge was willing to give him the minimum prison sentence but since he wanted no prison time he went with a jury trial to determine the sentence. If the jury wished, they could even grant probation with no prison time. He should have let the judge decide -- instead of the minimum sentence, the jury gave him the maximum sentence.

Having juries decide sentencing seems stupid. They should determine whether they are guilty and nullify if necessary. The judge should choose the sentence.

It seems to me that a prior murder conviction shouldn't be relevant in a trial for possession of drugs.

BTW, Ana, should you really be discussing this? Legally, I mean?

The trial is completely over on our part, just up to the judge to sentence him. We could only recommend, but it's up to her to do the actually sentencing. She said we were free to discuss the trial at our discretion. Rest assured, it is over except for what the judge will do.

The only thing that worries me, tbh, is the idea of this guy committing another murder in the future and then people asking, "why did you recommend such a light sentence when you could have gotten him off the street?"

I hope it's true he didn't do anything violent and he just happened to be blamed by others who did do it, which was the grandson of the man who was murdered. There were two others involved and it seems like this man we tried wasn't very bright so maybe they were trying to pin it on him.

If the trial wasn't over, I couldn't discuss this with anyone because we were instructed not to talk about it at all so me discussing it here definitely means it's okay because I understand how important the fair trial is and I would never post about a trial unless I knew for sure the judge allowed it. The trial was really short to keep us from reading up on the man's past, that i am sure of, because we got all of it, from being seated to handing out the verdict and sentence, by 7 pm that night all so we couldn't find anything out.

I just have been filled with dread and anxiety since reading about the man's past and wanted to know what others thought about this and what they think of it. I have been dizzy, light headed, sick to my stomach, no appetite, since the day it began.

Why would that be stupid?

It makes sense to me.

There are, of course, maximum sentences and a jury cannot sentence someone to sentence greater than the maximum.

It is having the judge do it that I don't like. Remember the pay for kids scandals where the judges were being paid to sentence kids to specific commercially run jails and prisons? Do you think that would likely happen if the jury did the sentencing?

To be more specific, I don't know what to think about the state not mentioning he had done time for first degree murder and is paroled until the year 2099. That's the part I am confused about. Should they or shouldn't they have mentioned it? He was still technically doing time since he was paroled.

That has left me feeling weird, like we were being deceived for some purpose...this entire trial was just strange. Something just doesn't feel right.

And the man never got a trial for first degree murder. He got one for this meth and paraphernalia but never for murder and it was very obvious he had possession of a cds, no question at all. Nothing dubious or off. Clear as black and white. It's left me feeling strange and anxious. It seems like something from X Files.

Generally, "prior bad acts" can't be introduced into a subsequent hearing of new bad acts ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404 ). The reason is that it might prejudice the outcome of the matter before the court. In the United States, at least, an individual is constitutionally guaranteed an impartial court regardless of past facts. The ability to remain impartial requires that any mention of unrelated crimes be excluded. There are, of course, permitted uses for introducing prior bad acts into the court record "such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident." My reference is a U.S. federal-court rule, but most states have similar provisions.

Last edited by AspieUtah on 23 Apr 2015, 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thanks, AspieUtah! This is why I am just keeping faith in the trial judge. I can calm my anxiety telling myself The Judge will do what she believes is best. All we as jury can do is judge what the court asks us to judge. Can't judge what we don't know. It's the trial judge's job to consider his past, not ours. I just need to focus on this.

You are welcome; court rules can seem strange. And, you helped protect the Constitution for the United States of America, even if the defendant ended up not really deserving it. Besides, anybody who knows the defendant probably knows all his bad acts, and stays away from him, anyway.

He wanders neighborhoods at night so it would be difficult for a random person to avoid him. When thinking of this particular trial in light of his past it's kinda unnerving when you consider he spent some time on the streets at night in parts of town with a lot of crime not that he has been convicted of any other crimes but the ones I previously mentioned.

He was charged with 3/4 grams of Meth--not murder. That's a low grade felony in some states, a misdemeanor in others.

He should be punished based upon the crime, with some latitude for sentence enhancement owing to his past criminal history.

Of course, juries should not decide sentences--that's the judge's job.

As far as jury deliberations are concerned, past crimes, like AspieUtah pointed out, shouldn't be mentioned, because it's likely to prejudice the jury's decision, and might seem almost like a "double jeopardy" sort of situation--wherein someone is being punished twice for the same crime.

He was in prison from 1984 to 2009 for first degree murder which he plead guilty, only something like five or six years into his sentence he tried to appeal it on grounds that he had inadequate counsel and didn't understand what he was pleading to only it was too late so he tried to appeal on the ground he was denied the opportunity to appeal within something like sixty days of his plea of guilty because his lawyer wouldn't take his collect calls from jail and his mother wouldn't pass along his messages to his attorney because she was worried he would get a death sentence.

He was paroled in 2009 until 2099.

All these appeals were denied by the federal court but the idea is, he wanted to plea not guilty and have a trial but it was too late.

So it's difficult to know for sure what happened since he never had a trail for murder.

So if he did commit the crime which was robbery, shooting and killing a man with a 22 caliber handgun, there's a man with meth roaming the streets at night and meth is supposed to cause some people to get mean and drug addicts are known to commit burglaries so they can get more drugs...so you can imagine where i am going with this. Not a good potential scenario if he, in fact, is guilty of the robbery and murder in '83. It's a ticking time bomb situation.

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 23 Apr 2015, 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I get what you mean.

But he still was only charged with drug possession.

It's like a prison sentence to a past murderer because he urinated in the street. People who urinate in the street could be "ticking time bombs." Or they might not be.

The punishment has to fit the crime, in my opinion.

But then.....maybe he violated his parole with the meth conviction. Maybe he'll be sent up the river, anyway.

If he never actually committed a violent crime, was just falsely accused and charged, and it would be easy because he never even had a trial, then he isn't much of a threat but if really did do it...and he's roaming around at night...somewhere in the back of your mind you think, this guy could get desperate, go into someone's house and rob them. He did have a knife on him when the cops stopped him while out at night.

I hate to say this:

But, theoretically, anybody could "snap" in the matter in which you described.

Even somebody who has been a solid citizen all his/her life, with not even a ticket to his/her name until he/she snapped.

Like I said: he'll probably be violated on his parole, and serve 6 months or so in prison.