i don’t understand why the jury can’t know what the sentencing is. that’s a huge deal.
If, say they think it’s only a few years they might not see it as a big deal and go for that because at least he doesn’t walk away clean. “he did something, give him a few years”
if they know it’s 30 yrs or something like that that could change the calculus.
Because it is their job to decide what the facts are. Their answers to those questions actually trump the “guilty” or “not guilty” answers. The judge then applies the law to the facts as determined by the jury.
That is how it is supposed to work.
So if they check off that this was self defense (or rather that the state did not prove it was not self defense), that’s it. None of the other answers they fill in matter. Now, if they determine that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense, then the other factual determinations matter.
Sentencing is not a factual determination and does not affect whether a fact has been proven or not, so they are not given that info because it could affect they’re determination of the facts (ie, working backwards and defining the facts to get a desired result instead of based on the evidence). Again, that is how it is supposed to work. It doesn’t alwatlys go that way though.
PS Juries are also called the “trier of fact.”
That’s the point. They are supposed to consider only the evidence and the testimony, not the potential sentence. The theory is that the sentence should have no influence on their verdict. It’s a good theory, but unworkable when you consider that they had the opportunity before the trial to educate themselves on the sentences for MS, but MS was sprung on them without warning, so they likely think it’s a 5-10 year sentence.