lb3 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

lb3 said:

---

No offense taken.

If prosecutors are bringing cases they can't support with the evidence, the judge should be throwing those cases out before they ever see a jury.

I've been jury forman twice so I've probably got more experience of what goes on in jury rooms than any attorney I've ever met.

Observation number 1 is that juries don't care about the law. I would never hold an attorney (defense or prosecutor) accountable for anything a jury decides.

---

You do realize judges rarely see any evidence until the trial actually starts?

---

And how many defense emotions to dismiss do they hear?

---

Virtually none.

torrid said:

---

Doesn't matter which way it falls, the verdict needs to be unanimous to count.

---

That's not the question. The question is whether that should change.

Martin Cash said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

lb3 said:

---

No offense taken.

If prosecutors are bringing cases they can't support with the evidence, the judge should be throwing those cases out before they ever see a jury.

I've been jury forman twice so I've probably got more experience of what goes on in jury rooms than any attorney I've ever met.

Observation number 1 is that juries don't care about the law. I would never hold an attorney (defense or prosecutor) accountable for anything a jury decides.

---

You do realize judges rarely see any evidence until the trial actually starts?

---

And how many defense emotions to dismiss do they hear?

---

Virtually none.

---

Then I would assume that means the system is working. The defense attorneys get to see all the evidence against their clients, so the lack of motions to dismiss for lack of evidence suggests that very few cases are brought that lack sufficient evidence to even try the case.

Nepolionic code. I think thats what hes' trying to say.

No

In the 90's, there was a murder case in Grimes County tried three times to a jury. First case was 10-2 for guilty. Second case was 9-3 for guilty. Third case venue was changed to Polk County, Tx. It was 2-10 for not guilty. The prosecution decided not to try the defendant ever again. Guilt could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

lethalninja said:

---

Should a hung jury in favor of acquittal conviction count as an acquittal conviction?

---

This could (and should) go both ways

lb3 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

lb3 said:

---

No offense taken.

If prosecutors are bringing cases they can't support with the evidence, the judge should be throwing those cases out before they ever see a jury.

I've been jury forman twice so I've probably got more experience of what goes on in jury rooms than any attorney I've ever met.

Observation number 1 is that juries don't care about the law. I would never hold an attorney (defense or prosecutor) accountable for anything a jury decides.

---

You do realize judges rarely see any evidence until the trial actually starts?

---

And how many defense emotions to dismiss do they hear?

---

Virtually none.

---

Then I would assume that means the system is working. The defense attorneys get to see all the evidence against their clients, so the lack of motions to dismiss for lack of evidence suggests that very few cases are brought that lack sufficient evidence to even try the case.

---

There is no such thing in Texas state criminal law as a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence. At the end of the state's case in chief there is a motion called motion for instructed verdict where the State's case in chief evidence has failed to make even a prima facie case against the defendant.

No. It would introduce extreme unpredictability into the criminal justice system, which at its core is meant to be predictable (but already faces levels of unpredictability).

It would also undermine confidence that jury verdicts represent a reasonable and representative understanding of the facts of cases

Bryanisbest said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

lb3 said:

---

No offense taken.

If prosecutors are bringing cases they can't support with the evidence, the judge should be throwing those cases out before they ever see a jury.

I've been jury forman twice so I've probably got more experience of what goes on in jury rooms than any attorney I've ever met.

Observation number 1 is that juries don't care about the law. I would never hold an attorney (defense or prosecutor) accountable for anything a jury decides.

---

You do realize judges rarely see any evidence until the trial actually starts?

---

And how many defense emotions to dismiss do they hear?

---

Virtually none.

---

Then I would assume that means the system is working. The defense attorneys get to see all the evidence against their clients, so the lack of motions to dismiss for lack of evidence suggests that very few cases are brought that lack sufficient evidence to even try the case.

---

There is no such thing in Texas state criminal law as a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence. At the end of the state's case in chief there is a motion called motion for instructed verdict where the State's case in chief evidence has failed to make even a prima facie case against the defendant.

---

For us lay persons, the purpose of a pre-trial probable cause hearing is to have a case dismissed for lack of evidence.

Martin Cash said:

---

lb3 said:

---

No offense taken.

If prosecutors are bringing cases they can't support with the evidence, the judge should be throwing those cases out before they ever see a jury.

I've been jury forman twice so I've probably got more experience of what goes on in jury rooms than any attorney I've ever met.

Observation number 1 is that juries don't care about the law. I would never hold an attorney (defense or prosecutor) accountable for anything a jury decides.

---

You do realize judges rarely see any evidence until the trial actually starts?

---

Not necessarily true. Depends on how many motions in limine to exclude evidence are filed in any particular case. That also can include expert testimony that either the state or the defense wants excluded from the jury.

The judge also sees the winess lists with summaries of their expected testimony to avoid cumulative evidence. Although the last few trials I have watched, the judges are far too lenient in allowing cumulative evidence. But that's also more likely on the prosecutors. (Lone exception being the prosecutors in the Waukesha Christmas Parade Massacre. Huge case with a huge numbers of victims and witnesses but they pared it down and presented a very tight coherent case. Best most organized prosecutors I have ever seen.)

lb3 said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

lb3 said:

---

No offense taken.

If prosecutors are bringing cases they can't support with the evidence, the judge should be throwing those cases out before they ever see a jury.

I've been jury forman twice so I've probably got more experience of what goes on in jury rooms than any attorney I've ever met.

Observation number 1 is that juries don't care about the law. I would never hold an attorney (defense or prosecutor) accountable for anything a jury decides.

---

You do realize judges rarely see any evidence until the trial actually starts?

---

And how many defense emotions to dismiss do they hear?

---

Virtually none.

---

Then I would assume that means the system is working. The defense attorneys get to see all the evidence against their clients, so the lack of motions to dismiss for lack of evidence suggests that very few cases are brought that lack sufficient evidence to even try the case.

---

There is no such thing in Texas state criminal law as a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence. At the end of the state's case in chief there is a motion called motion for instructed verdict where the State's case in chief evidence has failed to make even a prima facie case against the defendant.

---

For us lay persons, the purpose of a pre-trial probable cause hearing is to have a case dismissed for lack of evidence.

---

There is no "pre trial probable cause" hearing on evidence of guilt in Texas trial courts. Closest thing to that would be an "examining trial" but it's held in JP Court and the right to get one is cut off when an indictment is obtained from a grand jury. This, in effect, means they are never held. If a motion is filed asking for an examining trial, the state can run over to the grand jury, get an indictment which cuts off the right to an examining trial.