John T, Mike WA leagal expanation please

Guys What is this 6 man jury??? Is it due to cost???? Used to be 12? What is this about if 8 out of 12 find you guilty, you are, used to be if one held out the case was botched *** disclaimer i have not been before a jury (either side of the bench for years) nor do i plan on it!!!! Mike keep the Moline 4 star cranking!!!

Florida law only requires 6 person jury criminal cases, which are not for murder one. In a murder one (capital) case 12 is required. Varies by state. Not all cases require 12/12, depends on state, type case (criminal, civil, etc.) Tom

Murder statutes are STATE regulated NOT any Federal controlled crime, far as I know there arent any federal murder statutes (but Im NOT a criminal lawyer so no warranty on that), so each State has their own criminal law and jury requirements. HOWEVER the DOJ does have jurisdiction as far as civil rights violations and so called "hate crimes" but those get into the offenders state of mind etc. (HARD TO PROVE) However, the civil rights violations are geared more towards when a cop acting under "color of laW" violates a persons civil rights, not so much private citizens. Seems to me if you shoot someone down you must have (at that time at least) hated them to some extent, while the law has to do with your state of mind and hatred to some group of persons. Im not a fan of these so called "hate crimes" I am a fan of laws which if violated should result in punishment, regardless if there was or was not hate involved, as its tough to know let alone prove hate in general. i.e. if you shoot someone (and proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury) and it wasnt in self defense youre guilty PERIOD. Trying to tack on or label it as HATE may become more political then judicial I fear.

Hope my more current and still practicing co counsel Mike weighs in........

John T Country Lawyer

"and it wasnt in self defense youre guilty PERIOD." Need to expand that a bit for states incorporating the 'castle law'.....protection of property.

Actually, the 6 women jury was a women's lib thing, where the women deemed that 6 women were equivalent to 12 (or more) men! :evil: :roll: :lol:

Yep, I was in a hurry my 82 yo neighbor was here n needed HELP. What I intended was if you committ a crime and you're found guilty you should be punished REGARDLESS if you did it out of HATE or NOT out of HATE, the hate goes to a persons state of mind, and unlike if he fired the gun or not, thats a gray area as far as I'm concerned. I say if you do the crime you do the time regardless if you hated the other person or didnt hate him......That got us by fine for years

Just my opinion (NOT lawyer thinkin) same as any other citizens are entitled to

Fun chattin with ya JMOR

John T

Fer as I know (NO research whatsoever mind you)the so called castle laws give homeowners a bit more rights (kind of like self defense) as to what degree of force they may use (if home is invaded) and lessens the duty to retreat they might be required to exercise otherwise if outside or in a public place..Again, NOT based on any legal research at all, just what I picked up in passing, maybe right maybe wrong. NOW if I were hired to render an expert legal opinion Id have to research it and that takes work lol

John T

Disclaimer: I did some misdemeanor criminal defense many years ago, but have not done a criminal case for at least 10 years. Never did any felony work at all.

I was surprised by the 6 person jury in a murder case, too- In Washington, misdemeanors (less serious crimes) are prosecuted in District Court with 6 person jury, felonies in Superior Court before a 12 person jury. IMHO, 6 person is less cumbersome because the more people you have, the more difficult it is to come to a consensus. Here, jury decision must be unanimous either way- anything less is a "hung jury", and State can try the case again if they want. My greatest triumph back in the day was a DUI where the jury came back 4-2 for acquittal, state elected to re-try the case, this time I got her acquitted. Was she actually guilty? I don't know- She never told me, and I didn't ask.

I would be surprised if any state can convict on less than a unanimous decision in a criminal case. In a civil case here, 10 of the 12 can decide a case, and that may be what you're hearing about.

SC requires 12 on jury. I was recently called for jury duty and went to serve, even though I"m overage. Was not drawn to serve, I was rejected by the computer. Cases were criminal cases, but not murder.(crimes mostly the result of drunkeness or just lack of good judgement, to put it in a politically correct way)

KEH

Served on several juries, I"m certainly no expert, but this is my experience. In Texas -

6 person jury is for lesser criminal offenses, but still requires a unanimous verdict.

civil suit - 12 person jury but only requires 75% consensus (8 of 12 in agreement).

amen to that.

Agree 1000%.

I agree with your argument that you can't REALLY measure somebody's state of mind well enough to determine the right number of years to serve in prison.

But if the justice department goes the way it looks like it's trying to go on this Trayvon Martin case - it's worse than just that.

It sounds like they want to limit the extent to which you can defend yourself according to your open-mindedness towards other races.

I'm not supporting racism, but I'm sorry - but you can be the biggest racist this side of the Mason Dixon line, but that shouldn't mean you lose the right to defend yourself against somebody of the opposite skin color if you're in mortal danger.

Mike, you raised an interesting point: "...I didn't ask." Is it not customary for a defense attorney to ascertain the exact degree of guilt or involvement in the charge? Do lawyers want to know exactly what they're up against, or do they just construct a defense based on an assumption of innocence?

For sure, the way I (and the law if adhered to) looks at it is, if your reasonably fear serious bodily harm,,,,,theres no means of safe escape,,,,,,youre entitled to the use of deadly force to save your life REGARDLESS IF THE ATTACKER IS WHITE OR BLACK OR BROWN OR RED OR HATES YOU OR DOESNT HATE YOU.........theres no need to inject any race issue whatsoever nor to inquire into the attackers state of mind IF SOMEONE IS TRYING TO KILL YOU, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF and Im NOT aware this is untrue based on the race of the attacker or victim. So if that makes me a racist so be it, I will vigorously and even use deadly force ONLY AS NECESSARY to protect myself and my family.....Also, this is the SAME way I thought longggggggggg before law school

John T

You NEVER ask if they did it. Defense attorney is supposed to give the best defense that they can. But if you know they are lying ("Well, yeah, I did it, but I want you to say I was in Schenectedy at the time") then, you've got a problem. Because you can't KNOWINGLY foster a fraud upon the court. So you ask, "What is your defense?". But you don't want to know if their defense is a lie, because then you can't put it forward.

What is your defense?

I was in Schenectedy when the crime was committed.

Did anybody see you there?

Why yes- yes they did. My cousin was there, and she'll testify to it. Also her boyfriend- we went out for a few beers.

OK- what's your cousin's name, and how can I get in touch with her? And the boyfriend, too? Where did you go for the beers?

And so on, and so forth. That's how you build your case- never questioning whether the whole thing is just a scam. If you intimate to the court that its a scam, and that your client is actually guilty, you can get disbarred.

Defense work is not for the faint of heart- nor for the strong of character. A year of it was enough for me.

With regard to"hate crime",am I correct in thinking people were in times passed,prosicuted on charges of"inciting a mob"inciting a riot"or some similar charges? If they wern't,they should have/be. IMO public figures too often deliver insidious messages under protection of free speech. While I do not support censoring journalism,I hold authors accountable and believe socity should as well. It feels like as the "inciting"law faded from use,"hate crime"took it's place. Could there be a connection?

Thanks, Mike. I really didn't know that; I always assumed it was the lawyer's job to spin gold from straw.

You are a very erudite fellow. Only an erudite man would use "Schenectedy" in a fictional illustration; the rest of us would have used "Troy", or "Reno".