“11 people out of 12 had no problem deciding. One Person refused to follow the judge’s instructions on the law because they thought they knew better how a criminal trial should be decided.”
So your saying each juror doesn’t have the right to decide on their own and should just side with everybody else?
That’s not how our legal system works....and SHOULDN’T.
If the reports we’ve heard about the situation in the jury room are accurate, it was not a question of ‘deciding on one’s own’. The problem appears to be following the judge’s instructions regarding the law and its meaning.
I am not a fan of anyone involved in this trial; but I am a fan of our legal and trial systems and want to see them operate correctly. We are given instructions by the judge when we are put on a jury. It’s essential that we follow them to the best of our ability. If we don’t, we don’t have a system at all; just ‘courts of opinion’.
This jury is dismissed. I fully expect there to be another one, and we can all argue over what they do, too.
Having worked a court stenographer for over 40 years in military courts (both as an NCO and as a civil service employee), I have always thought that the judge's instructions to panel (jury) members on "reasonable doubt" was clear, concise, and easily understandable. As a matter of fact, one year, my mother was on a civilian jury and was confused about the "reasonable doubt" instruction given by the judge in her case. When I quoted her the instruction given in military courts, she told me that that was so easily understood that she had no further questions about it.
A "reasonable doubt" is not a fanciful or ingenious doubt or conjecture, but an honest, conscientious doubt suggested by the material evidence or lack of it in the case. It is an honest misgiving generated by insufficiency of proof of guilt. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" means proof to an evidentiary certainty, although not necessarily to an absolute or mathematical certainty. The proof must be such as to exclude not every hypothesis or possibility of innocence, but every fair and rational hypothesis except that of guilt. The rule as to reasonable doubt extends to every element of the offense, although each particular fact advanced by the prosecution which does not amount to an element need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if on the whole evidence, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the truth of each and every element, then you should find the accused guilty.