From what I understand, neither lawyer on the jury is a criminal lawyer.Remember: There are two lawyers on the jury. They KNOW this instruction inside out probably. Did they want someone else to hear what an inference is? https://t.co/hm0OG7a1N4
— emptywheel (synonym: foil) (@emptywheel) May 30, 2024
I worked in a law firm with litigators and business/real estate lawyers. The two groups practically spoke different languages. My experience was in civil law. I wouldn’t presume to know what “inference” meant in a criminal case, any more than I would, on a jury, offer my definition in a civil case. I’d defer to the instructions from the judge.
Don’t infer shit. Wait for the verdict. It’s the only way to be sure.
I see the process working exactly as it should. One of my two experiences as a jury member was a federal 5 week drug conspiracy trila with 3 defendents, almost 70 witnesses, a host of charges and findings, and more. I was the attorney on jury, and like the two in this case, no criminal practice background. I did understand we needed to find the various elements of each crime and then the elements of the conspiracy. Some jury members were confused by this, and we had part of the instructions reread (and also like the current case, they read the entire charge, not just the smaller section we requested). Also, as we debated there were at various points small differences among the jury members on the evidence. Again, it was better we were all on the same page, so those were read out from the transcript. I take all of the current requests as a positive sign that the jury is taking its responsibility seriously and is working right to do right by the process, the prosecution and the defense. Despite the circus outside the court, we should be grateful for the attentiveness of the jury.
ReplyDelete