Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

The Ricochet Podcast
3 Whisky Happy Hour
Beyond the Polls
GLoP Culture
Daily Signal
The Erick Erickson Show
Federalist Radio Hour
Not Dead Yet
Heritage Explains
Chicks on The Right
3 Martini Lunch
Call Me Back - with Dan Senor
The Learning Curve
The American Idea
The Radio Free Hillsdale Hour
Hillsdale Dialogues
Madison’s Notes
Mom Wars
What the Hell Is Going On
Parsing Immigration Policy
Freedom to Learn
Conservative Crossroads with Henry Olsen
The Conservative Woman’s Guide
Law Talk with Epstein, Yoo & Cooke
Giving Ventures
Who Funds that?
The Back of the Book
The Kevin Roberts Show with Larry O’Connor
Gray Matters
The Report Card with Nat Malkus
The Glenn Show
The Libertarian
Martini Shot
The Dave Carter Show
The Powerline Show
In Dissent
Heard at Heritage
Smart Girl Politics
James Lileks’ The Diner
Case in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and Culture
JobMakers
One on One with Robert DoarRicochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
When I sat on a jury, one of the charges was what we could and could not take into account. They wanted us to look at the facts of the case. In this case, there was a directed verdict because the law was so very clear. We just had to debate if there should have been an award (so we said) and how much (held up on appeal, so we were apparently in the right).
However, one of the defendants on the stand was so clearly a long-term alcoholic to my eyes, it lent a lot of credence to the testimony of the plaintiff regarding the other man's behavior. In short, the accusations against the defendant that he behaved like a belligerent drunk were totally believable.
It seems to me, that once I am back in that room, I can decide whatever I want based on whatever I want from the case. And I could easily refuse to vote "guilty" just because I did not like the haircut of the DA.
What am I missing?
Recommended by MembersThis post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.
Discussion (56)
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Honor.
I was hoping for a bit more legal analysis than that, but thank you for your input.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The vital importance of punishing Trump and anyone who helps him.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
You could, but you’d be violating the oath you took as a juror to base your verdict only on the facts of the case as presented at trial and the law given to you by the judge. Except in rare and egregious cases, the court isn’t going to pry into jury deliberations, but the assumption is jurors are acting within their oath.
So the judge instructs the jury on what they can and cannot consider, because the judge is legally required to do so.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
In a criminal case, the jurors have the last word if they acquit the accused. Even if they violate what the judge tells them, too bad. The verdict is final. But if they convict a defendant, the judge could theoretically overturn the verdict if he thinks they violated the jury instructions.
You're seeing five of 56 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.