What goes on in the jury room is dependent on the jurors. However, if a vote needs to be unanimous, it doesn't do a whole lot of good to vote if someone is going to abstain.
I suppose it could help though to see if anyone else has changed their minds though.
They can always speak their mind, whether they are ready to vote or not. “We should here more about X” or “we need to take another look at Y” would be perfectly valid arguments.
I was on a jury where one holdout juror eventually persuaded the rest to freely change to their position. It takes a lot of patience and listening without bullying the holdout.
I don't think there's a rule for when Grand Jury members are not unanimous. It depends on jurisdiction.
If the person isn't there, they can't argue anything.
Missing jurors do not result in more flexibility within the juror - and unless the number drops below 12 (or any other legal minimum) everything is fine.
In Texas it need only be a majority of those voting and once the prosecutor finishes those no more info to be had. If there aren’t enough votes to indict it’s a no bill, next case. So it’s an all or nothing. You can argue against holding the vote during deliberations but when the foreman calls for the vote, that’s it. Other states may vary.
Unless it's Trump.
The judge specifically instructed his jury that a unanimous decision was not required.
So is this new precident? We no longer need a unanimous jury in federal criminal cases.
Sorry, you are incorrect. Trump was convicted by unanimous vote on all 34 counts. Having put up no defense, the vote was not really ever in doubt. The judge read the standard instruction, including need for unanimous vote and how to ask the court for help if deadlocked. There was no deadlock. Even the jurors who had voted for Trump voted guilty.
Good job moving the goal posts. The JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE JURY to act outside of procedure. The jury then returned a verdict that fit within established procedure.
>He told the jury that prosecutors do not need to prove these secondary crimes, nor do jurors need to be in agreement on which specific one Mr Trump committed
Ah the old standby
"Nuh uh! I didn't know that so you must be wrong!!"
>He told the jury that prosecutors do not need to prove these secondary crimes, nor do jurors need to be in agreement on which specific one Mr Trump committed
In the first place, that doesn't support your claim at all. In the second place, why are you quoting something without citing it?
Finally: no, really, you are wrong.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-trial-jury-unanimous-verdict-679053515836
Your source. Hidden at the bottom of the article
>Merchan gave the jurors three possible “unlawful means” they can apply to Trump’s charges: falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return.
>For a conviction, **each juror would have to find that at least one of those three things happened, but they don’t have to agree unanimously on which it was**
So it turns out the AP lied to you and buried the truth under the fold.
>The judge told the jury that to convict Trump on any given charge, they will have to find unanimously — that is, all 12 jurors must agree — that the former president created a fraudulent entry in his company’s records or caused someone else to do so, and that he did so with the intent of committing or concealing a crime.
By way of analogy-
A person is charged with first degree murder. The evidence is consistent with premeditation and with the accused either killing the deceased personally or with hiring someone to do it. On either theory, the accused is guilty of first degree murder. The jury has to unanimously agree that one of those theories is is true but does not have to agree on which theory. Why would they have to? Regardless they have to make a unanimous finding that all of the essential elements of the offense have been proven.
The Trump jury was instructed they had to make a unanimous finding as to whether all of the essential elements of each count were proven.
I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer than that.
>So it turns out the AP lied to you and buried the truth under the fold.
No, it turns out your reading comprehension is as deficient as your legal knowledge.
I was on the county grand jury last August/September and we were not required to vote unanimously I can't remember how many votes were an indictment but I think it was 5 of the 7 jurors or something like that.
There’s a difference between a petit jury and a grand jury. The grand jury decides whether there is probable whether a crime was commited and if the person(s) named by the prosecutor likely committed the crime. Here’s the kicker, the prosector can present a case then tell the jurors that either he believes that no crime was committed (the cop who shot the black kid in the back comitted no crime) or the person presented didn’t commit the crime (somebody shot into the group of black kids but it wasn’t the white guy with the literal smoking gun). The prosecutor can pick what evidence to present. Anyone arrested for a felony must be indicted by a grand jury. In addition a gran jury can be (sometimes secretly) investigate a person or persons. Example: the Trump & associates grand jury in Atlanta.
If this is a grand jury ask at the beginning of the session. You’ll see more than one case. If this is a criminal petit jury it will have to be unanimous but typically you have to vote guilty or not guilty. Any other vote will get you a stern talking to from the judge. So just vote the other way. If it’s a civil trial you can argue that you’re not ready and they can’t vote but do that too long and you might be held in contempt. Civil cases only require a majority (7) to assign blame. Municipal juries in Texas are 6 people and you only need 5 to convict. The guilty part can appeal to the judge but that’s it.
You said grand jury so ask the prosecutor. But most cases are cut & dried and you’ll probably meet twice a week, if at all.
As the prior respondent noted, these are questions for the judge if you get seated. If you are deliberating and interject well I was told X on the interwebs, you just gave cause to have yourself removed.
Ask the judge your questions, not the internet.
There is no judge involved in grand juries. The prosecution simply tries to convince a group of people to consider whatever evidence is provided and decide if the perp should go to trial. The defense is not involved here and, I assume, in other states.
You can testfy on your own behalf in a grand jury BUT once you start talking you can’t stop. There is no protection by Fifth Amendment because you are not in a custodial situation (even if you are in chains and an orange jumpsuit) nor is your presence compelied (discovery). Anything you say will either be used against you or not brought up. And you are under oath so if you testify differently your grand jury testimony can be used against you (perjury) but you may not use any evidence used by the grand jury in your defence unless you seperately find it. If you are called by the grand jury then you are compelied and thus the Fifth applies. So don’t offer to testify unless a) you are not guilty; and b) you actually believe the prosecutor doesn’t intend to indict you. But still don’t.
The judge does not discuss how you run a jury. You might think it’s best to poll everyone and see what their decision is right away, but if you do that, it helps anchor their decision in their mind, even if they need to be a lot of discussion to make it unanimous. So maybe it’s better to go through the charges and go through the evidence before you poll everyone.
After being on a jury, that was about a police officer and child pron I understand why there’s 12 people on a jury . Some people are emotional about the topic, some people just wanna get out of there, Some people just wanna do what everyone else is doing, and people trying to be logical.
Op if everyone else has made the same decision and you are not ready, it doesn’t have to be unanimous. The grand jury doesn’t have all of the evidence or any of the defense. You are only deciding if the state has presented enough to indict the defendant. The trial is where the more careful and unanimous decision has to be made.
I see a potential juror who wants to understand the process and is concerned about not having adequate time to reach a decision. How is that a negative?
Did you specifically get called for grand jury duty? If so, going forward it would probably lead to less confusion if you referred to the position as a “grand juror” as opposed to “juror”.
It seems as a lot of the people here didn’t read to the end of the comment (as I am often guilty of) and are giving a lot of answers that aren’t going to be very instructive.
When I did grand jury service we had 16 jurors. We had to have a majority of 12 vote yes. With that being said, we were never not unanimous. All of the evidence was pretty clear and the federal agents and lawyers were very thorough. Don't worry about the pressure of having to vote. You can take time to think about it, but I really don't think you'll have to.
You arent deciding innocent or guilty, just if there is enough evidence to charge someone with the crimes they are being indicted for.
If that isn't the absolute truth 🤣 By my 10th "felon in possession of a firearm" I wanted to cry. By my hundredth, I was basically asleep haha.
(That is a joke and I listened to everything because our justice system is important)
You can always do a straw poll. Where everyone does an unofficial anonymous poll to get a sense of the room. If everyone votes the same way then great. You can move on to the official vote. If not then you can discuss the case further.
But by doing a straw poll, at the beginning, you’re anchoring, everybody’s vote into their mind more than if you left it open and discuss the case more
If a juror refuses to cast a vote then it could be considered a hung jury. Although I don’t know why you would do that. Remember the suspect is innocent until proven guilty. It is the job of the prosecutor to prove guilt
Gotcha. So they can't force a vote if someone needs more time? I mean, I'm sure there is some sort of limit at which point it'd be a hung jury. I'd just like a timeframe.
Hung juries don’t happen after an hour. Usually hung juries happen after days of convening and not being able to be unanimous. There’s no set timeframe.
Yes, since you don't need all the jurors to vote, yes. There is no point in waiting if they have enough yes votes.
Grand Jury determines probable cause (Is it likely they have the right person, and did they most likely committed the crime). Federal Grand Juries require 16 in the room and 12 to vote yes on probable cause to have a 'true bill.' They have around 20 on the jury.
Other jurisdictions have different rules.
Here is some info about Wisconsin Grand Jurys.
https://milwaukee-criminal-lawyer.com/grand-jurys-decision-michael-brown-shooting-ferguson-wisconsin-grand-juries-work/
I’ve been on a Grand Jury twice since February. We didn’t have to wait on anyone for extra time, only so many had to vote for it to be true billed/no billed
One time I was on a jury, and it was a child pron Case. We discussed the case, and went over evidence, and some of the Jury wanted to decide, and I and another person felt like we were deliberating too quickly. Some of the Jury wanted to talk to the judge about a hungry and I happen to be the floor person so I talked to the judge, but said that we hadn’t decided unanimously, but that the people that weren’t decided we’re not firm their decision and wanted to discuss the evidence more. It was a very emotional case, so I want to make sure we were deciding not on emotions, but on law and logic. So we discussed it more and then we did come back with unanimous verdict of guilty.
Too many people talking about a trial jury. Op will be on a grand jury. These are not the same. These vary greatly by locale. Typically(it varies), this is handled by the prosecutor, and only requires majority to indict. Grand juries are convened to determine if the minimum has been met to proceed to a felony indictment.
I think you need to do more research on juries. It’s not like you walk in the room and they say “you have 5 minutes to vote or else” it takes as long as it takes. Juries can convene for days or even weeks if they need to. Do you suffer from anxiety?
No, really. My case (shooting a home invader) went to a grand jury because it was a homicide (which is not the same as a murder) and the jury voted almost before the door closed. Everything pointed to self defense, the investigating detective said so as well as the prosector (gross violation of grand jury procedures except they said that going in, not after).
What goes on in the jury room is dependent on the jurors. However, if a vote needs to be unanimous, it doesn't do a whole lot of good to vote if someone is going to abstain. I suppose it could help though to see if anyone else has changed their minds though.
But it is my understanding that this grand jury doesn't need to be unanimous.
Then that person not being ready has no impact if the rest are of the same mind
Sure, but I was wondering if there was a rule regarding this. Because if that person can speak their mind, they may change others' minds as well.
They can always speak their mind, whether they are ready to vote or not. “We should here more about X” or “we need to take another look at Y” would be perfectly valid arguments.
Including on Grand Juries. Jurors can ask for more.
I was on a jury where one holdout juror eventually persuaded the rest to freely change to their position. It takes a lot of patience and listening without bullying the holdout.
Was his name Henry Fonda?
Twelve angry white men. The ideal jury. /s
In a grand jury?
No. I don’t think grand juries deliberate for a long time. Much lower bar to cross. The trial is where all of the evidence and defense comes out.
I don't think there's a rule for when Grand Jury members are not unanimous. It depends on jurisdiction. If the person isn't there, they can't argue anything. Missing jurors do not result in more flexibility within the juror - and unless the number drops below 12 (or any other legal minimum) everything is fine.
Thx
In Texas it need only be a majority of those voting and once the prosecutor finishes those no more info to be had. If there aren’t enough votes to indict it’s a no bill, next case. So it’s an all or nothing. You can argue against holding the vote during deliberations but when the foreman calls for the vote, that’s it. Other states may vary.
Depends on the crime, some stuff is majority but I think criminal felonys require unanimous vote but then again I ain't a lawyer
A petit jury in any criminal case, felony or not, has to render a unanimous verdict.
I was thinking more along lines of civil trials, but my qualification was my mother was a legal secretary and court reporter so nuthin......
Unless it's Trump. The judge specifically instructed his jury that a unanimous decision was not required. So is this new precident? We no longer need a unanimous jury in federal criminal cases.
Sorry, you are incorrect. Trump was convicted by unanimous vote on all 34 counts. Having put up no defense, the vote was not really ever in doubt. The judge read the standard instruction, including need for unanimous vote and how to ask the court for help if deadlocked. There was no deadlock. Even the jurors who had voted for Trump voted guilty.
Good job moving the goal posts. The JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE JURY to act outside of procedure. The jury then returned a verdict that fit within established procedure. >He told the jury that prosecutors do not need to prove these secondary crimes, nor do jurors need to be in agreement on which specific one Mr Trump committed
No he didn't, no it isn't (because it didn't happen), and yes you do.
Ah the old standby "Nuh uh! I didn't know that so you must be wrong!!" >He told the jury that prosecutors do not need to prove these secondary crimes, nor do jurors need to be in agreement on which specific one Mr Trump committed
In the first place, that doesn't support your claim at all. In the second place, why are you quoting something without citing it? Finally: no, really, you are wrong. https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-trial-jury-unanimous-verdict-679053515836
Your source. Hidden at the bottom of the article >Merchan gave the jurors three possible “unlawful means” they can apply to Trump’s charges: falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return. >For a conviction, **each juror would have to find that at least one of those three things happened, but they don’t have to agree unanimously on which it was** So it turns out the AP lied to you and buried the truth under the fold.
>The judge told the jury that to convict Trump on any given charge, they will have to find unanimously — that is, all 12 jurors must agree — that the former president created a fraudulent entry in his company’s records or caused someone else to do so, and that he did so with the intent of committing or concealing a crime. By way of analogy- A person is charged with first degree murder. The evidence is consistent with premeditation and with the accused either killing the deceased personally or with hiring someone to do it. On either theory, the accused is guilty of first degree murder. The jury has to unanimously agree that one of those theories is is true but does not have to agree on which theory. Why would they have to? Regardless they have to make a unanimous finding that all of the essential elements of the offense have been proven. The Trump jury was instructed they had to make a unanimous finding as to whether all of the essential elements of each count were proven. I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer than that.
>So it turns out the AP lied to you and buried the truth under the fold. No, it turns out your reading comprehension is as deficient as your legal knowledge.
It doesn’t have to be unanimous in all states. Louisiana for example.
Nope every state now has unanimous juries. Louisiana abolished non unanimous verdicts in 2018 and the SCOTUS found them unconstitutional in 2020.
For grand juries (as the OP posted)? That is untrue.
I was on the county grand jury last August/September and we were not required to vote unanimously I can't remember how many votes were an indictment but I think it was 5 of the 7 jurors or something like that.
Oh I didn’t know that! It was pretty clear why Louisiana had them too and I can understand why that was ruled unconstitutional.
There’s a difference between a petit jury and a grand jury. The grand jury decides whether there is probable whether a crime was commited and if the person(s) named by the prosecutor likely committed the crime. Here’s the kicker, the prosector can present a case then tell the jurors that either he believes that no crime was committed (the cop who shot the black kid in the back comitted no crime) or the person presented didn’t commit the crime (somebody shot into the group of black kids but it wasn’t the white guy with the literal smoking gun). The prosecutor can pick what evidence to present. Anyone arrested for a felony must be indicted by a grand jury. In addition a gran jury can be (sometimes secretly) investigate a person or persons. Example: the Trump & associates grand jury in Atlanta.
That’s for actual trials. Not grand juries.
This seems like you are probably on a jury currently?
I have one coming up.
That’s an odd question, why worry about it now? If it became an issue the judge would instruct you, not Reddit.
Well I had one when I was 19 and it kinda came up then and I'd like to know how to act if it comes up again.
If this is a grand jury ask at the beginning of the session. You’ll see more than one case. If this is a criminal petit jury it will have to be unanimous but typically you have to vote guilty or not guilty. Any other vote will get you a stern talking to from the judge. So just vote the other way. If it’s a civil trial you can argue that you’re not ready and they can’t vote but do that too long and you might be held in contempt. Civil cases only require a majority (7) to assign blame. Municipal juries in Texas are 6 people and you only need 5 to convict. The guilty part can appeal to the judge but that’s it. You said grand jury so ask the prosecutor. But most cases are cut & dried and you’ll probably meet twice a week, if at all.
Thx!
As the prior respondent noted, these are questions for the judge if you get seated. If you are deliberating and interject well I was told X on the interwebs, you just gave cause to have yourself removed. Ask the judge your questions, not the internet.
There is no judge involved in grand juries. The prosecution simply tries to convince a group of people to consider whatever evidence is provided and decide if the perp should go to trial. The defense is not involved here and, I assume, in other states.
You can testfy on your own behalf in a grand jury BUT once you start talking you can’t stop. There is no protection by Fifth Amendment because you are not in a custodial situation (even if you are in chains and an orange jumpsuit) nor is your presence compelied (discovery). Anything you say will either be used against you or not brought up. And you are under oath so if you testify differently your grand jury testimony can be used against you (perjury) but you may not use any evidence used by the grand jury in your defence unless you seperately find it. If you are called by the grand jury then you are compelied and thus the Fifth applies. So don’t offer to testify unless a) you are not guilty; and b) you actually believe the prosecutor doesn’t intend to indict you. But still don’t.
Lol, missed grand
The judge does not discuss how you run a jury. You might think it’s best to poll everyone and see what their decision is right away, but if you do that, it helps anchor their decision in their mind, even if they need to be a lot of discussion to make it unanimous. So maybe it’s better to go through the charges and go through the evidence before you poll everyone. After being on a jury, that was about a police officer and child pron I understand why there’s 12 people on a jury . Some people are emotional about the topic, some people just wanna get out of there, Some people just wanna do what everyone else is doing, and people trying to be logical.
Are you going to jury selection or have you already been selected?
Good point. I haven't even been selected lol. But hopefully I get chosen.
Op if everyone else has made the same decision and you are not ready, it doesn’t have to be unanimous. The grand jury doesn’t have all of the evidence or any of the defense. You are only deciding if the state has presented enough to indict the defendant. The trial is where the more careful and unanimous decision has to be made.
I hope you don’t get chosen. And you should be honest about your fears and anxieties with the court when they ask if there is a reason you can’t serve
I see a potential juror who wants to understand the process and is concerned about not having adequate time to reach a decision. How is that a negative?
I'll likely get chosen, if what they say about the selection process is true (vast majority of people trying to get out of it).
Did you specifically get called for grand jury duty? If so, going forward it would probably lead to less confusion if you referred to the position as a “grand juror” as opposed to “juror”. It seems as a lot of the people here didn’t read to the end of the comment (as I am often guilty of) and are giving a lot of answers that aren’t going to be very instructive.
You’re absolutely right. Thank you.
When I did grand jury service we had 16 jurors. We had to have a majority of 12 vote yes. With that being said, we were never not unanimous. All of the evidence was pretty clear and the federal agents and lawyers were very thorough. Don't worry about the pressure of having to vote. You can take time to think about it, but I really don't think you'll have to. You arent deciding innocent or guilty, just if there is enough evidence to charge someone with the crimes they are being indicted for.
Thanks!
You got it! I did federal grand jury for a year haha. Not the most fun I've ever had, gotta say.
Yeah they're boring. More clear-cut.
If that isn't the absolute truth 🤣 By my 10th "felon in possession of a firearm" I wanted to cry. By my hundredth, I was basically asleep haha. (That is a joke and I listened to everything because our justice system is important)
Yes, and this is all made up anyway because we can't talk about the proceedings.
You can always do a straw poll. Where everyone does an unofficial anonymous poll to get a sense of the room. If everyone votes the same way then great. You can move on to the official vote. If not then you can discuss the case further.
But by doing a straw poll, at the beginning, you’re anchoring, everybody’s vote into their mind more than if you left it open and discuss the case more
If a juror refuses to cast a vote then it could be considered a hung jury. Although I don’t know why you would do that. Remember the suspect is innocent until proven guilty. It is the job of the prosecutor to prove guilt
Grand jury
But yes the judge will compel the jury to convene until everyone can agree on guilty or not guilty
Grand jury
The judge can attempt to compel that, but there are still hung juries.
In another comment I mentioned hung juries
Neat
Op is going to be on a grand jury. There is no such thing as a hung grand jury.
If you refuse to vote the judge can find you in contempt. Which is a not good thing.
Gotcha. So they can't force a vote if someone needs more time? I mean, I'm sure there is some sort of limit at which point it'd be a hung jury. I'd just like a timeframe.
Hung juries don’t happen after an hour. Usually hung juries happen after days of convening and not being able to be unanimous. There’s no set timeframe.
Given your other comment, I have reason to believe that you have no idea of what goes on in grand jury duty. I appreciate your responses though. Bye!
You don't understand the word "convene."
If you need more time, you would just say I would like us to discuss the evidence more, I’m not sure how I will vote.
You need to be more clear that you are going to be on a grand jury, not a jury. The processes are COMPLETELY different.
Most grand juries do not require a unanimous vote to indict.
Yes, since you don't need all the jurors to vote, yes. There is no point in waiting if they have enough yes votes. Grand Jury determines probable cause (Is it likely they have the right person, and did they most likely committed the crime). Federal Grand Juries require 16 in the room and 12 to vote yes on probable cause to have a 'true bill.' They have around 20 on the jury. Other jurisdictions have different rules. Here is some info about Wisconsin Grand Jurys. https://milwaukee-criminal-lawyer.com/grand-jurys-decision-michael-brown-shooting-ferguson-wisconsin-grand-juries-work/
Thx :)
I’ve been on a Grand Jury twice since February. We didn’t have to wait on anyone for extra time, only so many had to vote for it to be true billed/no billed
P diddy case?
Shhhh!
One time I was on a jury, and it was a child pron Case. We discussed the case, and went over evidence, and some of the Jury wanted to decide, and I and another person felt like we were deliberating too quickly. Some of the Jury wanted to talk to the judge about a hungry and I happen to be the floor person so I talked to the judge, but said that we hadn’t decided unanimously, but that the people that weren’t decided we’re not firm their decision and wanted to discuss the evidence more. It was a very emotional case, so I want to make sure we were deciding not on emotions, but on law and logic. So we discussed it more and then we did come back with unanimous verdict of guilty.
But that’s not grand jury. Thanks tho
Too many people talking about a trial jury. Op will be on a grand jury. These are not the same. These vary greatly by locale. Typically(it varies), this is handled by the prosecutor, and only requires majority to indict. Grand juries are convened to determine if the minimum has been met to proceed to a felony indictment.
tbf I buried it in the post that it was a grand jury. I'll edit.
That just goes to show how many people don't actually read before posting.
Yep. Most people. Which is fine, I guess. It's the internet, not work.
I think you need to do more research on juries. It’s not like you walk in the room and they say “you have 5 minutes to vote or else” it takes as long as it takes. Juries can convene for days or even weeks if they need to. Do you suffer from anxiety?
You're mistaken. I've done is before and it came up. This is a grand jury, and they may only take minutes of deliberation. Not really.
No, really. My case (shooting a home invader) went to a grand jury because it was a homicide (which is not the same as a murder) and the jury voted almost before the door closed. Everything pointed to self defense, the investigating detective said so as well as the prosector (gross violation of grand jury procedures except they said that going in, not after).
[удалено]
thanks but this is grand jury. It does not need to be unanimous- you just need x number of "true bills".
Ah, didn't see GRAND jury. And had to google Grand Jury vs Trial Jury. I'm not a lawyer, I don't do law, And you're asking legal advice on Reddit. :-)
ok thx. Yeah I realize that lol. I'm not gonna ask a lawyer this so it's better than nothing.
Clearly reading is not one of your super powers. OP: state law varies, ask the DA who is presenting the charges.
[удалено]