A defendant is on trial for murder. He will be found guilty if his actions are judged to have been deliberate, and premeditated. The jurors find as follows:
Juror #. Deliberate? Premeditated?
Juror 1: No Yes
Juror 2: No Yes
Juror 3: Yes No
Juror 4: No Yes
Juror 5: Yes Yes
Juror 6: Yes No
Juror 7: Yes Yes
Juror 8: No Yes
Juror 9: Yes No
Juror 10: Yes No
Juror 11: Yes Yes
Juror 12: Yes Yes
A majority believe it was deliberate, and a majority believe it was premeditated, so the man is given the death penalty.
In subsequent interviews, the jurors are asked if they think the man should have received the death penalty and a majority of them say no.
How can this be? Was the man wrongfully convicted?
An interesting problem.
According to the preamble, the defendant's actions must have been both deliberate and premeditated, to establish guilt.
Assuming we are considering a criminal jurisdiction such as that of the US or UK, the problem here is essentially misdirection of the jury, who seem to have been presented the two elements of the case as though they were to be decided separately.
A better direction would have been 'Were the Defendant's actions deliberate (issue A)? If so, were they also premeditated?(issue B)?' (or vice versa).
A no vote on Issue A is a vote for acquittal, and so is a no vote on issue B. It doesn't matter what the jurors thought about the other issue.
However, we can't be sure the relevant jurisdiction is the US or UK, since that is not given. It's quite possible that in some other jurisdiction the jury has the role of finding facts without determining guilt or innocence (and indeed, the jury can have just such a role in, say, civil - though not criminal - proceedings in the US). In that case, the direction could be perfectly valid, as the jury is not determining guilt or innocence, but simply reaching a decision on two separate, if related, issues. In that case the Judge would be quite entitled to accept the majority verdicts without reference to the composition of the majorities (and this has happened in at least one civil US case in the past.)
In that case, the defendant would have been rightly convicted.
The second part of the question suggests that if both elements are proved, the death penalty is somehow automatic.
In the first case assumed above, as a juror who had voted no on either issue, I would be incensed at this outcome, a consequence of grave judicial incompetence.
In the second, it's not so easy to see why the jury's view would matter. They were asked to find certain facts, and they did. What happened subsequently is not really their responsibility. For this reason I'm inclined to believe that the draftsperson of the question had a conventional common-law criminal system in mind - probably the US, as post-trial jury questioning is strongly discouraged by the UK courts.
Edited on May 5, 2021, 9:40 am
|
|
Posted by broll
on 2021-05-05 09:37:27 |
On the one hand...
