12 angry men is on again.

[rug]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTDhgR3p12w

Much more powerful than 87,000 assholes.

[happyslug]

1. This is the 1955 version, not the 1997 remake

It is a product of its time, 12 WHITE men deciding the fate of a young African American (Till the 1960s that was the norm in most of the United States). The 1997 version suffered for it included African Americans in the Jury for the original movie is about 12 WHITE men overcoming their prejudices against the young african American and seeing that the evidence did NOT support a conviction when their prejudices would support a conviction (One Juror, Henry Fonda in the Original, always saw through the prejudice, but that was needed to get the others to overcome their prejudices).

One of the prejudices just hinted at in both movies is the tendency of jurors to view the defendant guilty on the presumption the prosecution would NEVER put an innocent man on trial. In many ways BOTH movies retain this undercurrent, but it is NOT drilled home for technically the Jury has to hold the prosecution to the duty of PROVING someone is guilty. Defense attorneys know this and thus prefer a Judge Trial if guilt and innocent are real issues, Prosecutors prefer Juries. Now, historically, Juries have refused to convict a person who actions the Jurors support, but that was rare then and even rarer now (And the last set of cases where the Jury refused to Convict people of actions the Jurors approval of involved various Civil Rights opposition leaders in the South in the 1950s and 1960s).

Now, Jurors have lead to changes in the law. The Ziegler case is the classic example. In the early 1700s Ziegler published a Newspaper that said the Royal Governor of New York was corrupt. The Governor then filed a Criminal libel action against Ziegler. At that time, the early 1700s, the law was simple, if you printed a comment about someone and that comment harmed him in any way, you were libel for that comment and could spend time in jail. Furthermore the rule as to libel was simple "The Greater the truth, the Greater the Libel". i.e. if you accused someone of being corrupt, that fact that he was corrupt made it a worse crime to say he was Corrupt. Zielger was one of the more famous example of a Jury refusing to convict someone of libel for printing the truth, and such ruling by Juries slowly changed the law, but it should be noted that it was a Jury that agreed with what Ziegler was doing, just like the Juries that refused to convict the killers of Civil Rights Workers agreed with what the defendants were doing.

The problem with prejudices of Jurors is that is sometime leads to the guilty walking free, but most often the prejudice permit the innocent to be found guilty (Which is clearer in the 1955 movie given it has 12 WHITE men deciding the fate of an African American). This prejudice against people who are not "us" is what "12 Angry men" was addressing. It is often difficult to over come such prejudices, but it can be done.

One last note, we have to remember when we are member of a jury we have to really accept that the defendant is INNOCENT unless the prosecution has proven he is guilty (NOT simply say he is innocent, but view him as innocent UNTIL the jury review the evidence). The mere fact that the prosecution brings a case against someone should NOT be a factor (but it is) and as such the members of the Jury must be careful NOT to fall into that trap i.e. ruling that the defendant is guilty because he fails to prove he is innocent.

[rug]

2. In the original, the defendant is Puerto Rican, played by John Savoca in his only role.

My technical beef with the original is that several jurors say they're convinced he is not guilty. The burden of proof is the exact opposite. I would never take a bench trial over a jury trial.

None of this is the point though.

The three minutes of each juror (but two) getting up and turning their back on this raving bigot is outstanding. Imagine if that happened every time Beck entered a room.

[happyslug]

3. And almost every defense attorney will advise you otherwise.

Juries want to convict, that is the opinion of most attorneys AND supported in most trials. Thus if you want to get an acquittal based on a "fact finder" weighing the facts of the case, I would go with a Judge.

[rug]

4. I am a defense attorney.

[happyslug]

8. The lawyers where I practice have that opinion.

Juries in Western Pa want to convict, other places it may be different but not in Western Pennsylvania. Now I do NOT do Legal Criminal Defense work, but that in the consensus of most of the defense bar in Cambria County and Western Pennsylvania that I have discussed juries with.

[Curmudgeoness]

9. I'm in W PA too, and I have been surprised when I was on jury duty

at how many people appear to NOT want to judge or convict, even when the evidence is overwhelming. I am a lucky one who gets called often and seem to always get picked. I think I look benign.

Hi W PA. :hi:

[happyslug]

11. I do NOT do any legal work that requires a jury...

But when I discuss juries with attorneys who do practice in front of juries they express that attitude. A recent case out Blair demonstrates that problems. During a period of high water a woman found a young child near a river, She took him back to his father and told the father to keep the child away from the river for it was dangerous. The woman walked back to the River and the next thing she saw was that the child was BACK at the river and then she saw the child in the river drowning.

At her trial the father said he told the child to stay near but saw the child leave and follow the woman back to the river. The issue for the Jury was did the woman, who was unrelated to the child, had a duty to prevent the accident and take the child back again to his father. Under the Common law, the applicable law in Pennsylvania, the rule is you had NO duty to protect anyone from harm UNLESS they is some evidence that you either assumed that duty OR they was some other legal duty to protect the person being harmed. Parent-Child, Babysitter-Child is two cases where an adult can be held liable to the death of a child IF the child dies while in their care.

It was clear that if the woman had done NOTHING, i.e. NEVER took the child back to his father and told the father to keep the child away from the River, she would have had NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to prevent that child from drowning. The District Attorney brought a criminal action against the woman on the ground that she assumed a duty when she took the child back the first time, and thus she had an obligations to do it again when she saw the child in the same situation. When she failed to do return the child the second time and the child drown, she was criminally liable for failure to protect that child. Her defense was simple, she had no duty to protect that child for she assumed no such duty by the mere act of turning that child to his father the first time. If the father did not want to prevent the child from drowning (and as the child's father he had that duty), her act of returning the child once did NOT make it her duty to do that over and over again.

In my opinion, the woman should NEVER have been charged, for she had no LEGAL duty to protect that child AND her act of returning the child ONCE, did NOT make it her duty to do that over and over again. The Jury decided otherwise, i.e. she HAD assumed that duty by returning the child the first time and by doing so she assumed the legal obligation to do it over and over again. I view it as a bad decision, the law is clear and has been clear for at least 800 years in the English Common Law System, i.e. unless there is a clear legal duty (you put the person in harm's way, you had a duty to THAT person in particular situation etc) you have NO general Obligation to protect or save anyone.

I give it as an example of the tendency of juries to convict. The prosecution took this case to trial for this was a high profile death in the Altoona media. In most such cases no one is prosecuted for the person liable is the parent and in most cases they have suffered enough do to their loss of their child. In this case you had a woman who did TRY to do the right thing, but then the parents inaction let the situation recur and ended up with the child drowning. Since a third party was involved the parents blamed the woman and the District Attorney feeling the heat took on the case with a very flimsy rationale. That rationale was enough for a jury to find the woman had a duty to take that child back a second time and when she did not she was criminally liable.

Just a comment on bad cases by juries who want to convict.

The Judge left it go to a Jury for the same political reasons i.e. get a jury to acquit the woman so the Judge can blame the Jury

[Curmudgeoness]

13. That is scary as hell. So I guess the moral of the story is...

don't bother trying to help ever. That moral sucks. And you are right, the DA should never have taken this to trial. If I was on that jury, I suppose we would have been deadlocked, because there is no way in hell I would have caved on that.

I guess that jury trial are totally irrational.

[rug]

15. Hey, move to Pike County. We need you!

[rug]

10. I'm in NE PA but I practice in NY and NJ as well.

There is a difference between juries in the Bronx and Pike County. There is a difference in jury selection as well. In New York you are permitted to question potential jurors individually. In Pennsylvania, you cannot except in capital cases or with specific permission. Pike County is heavily Republican; the Bronx obviously is not.

While rural PA jurors may well be disposed to convict, they will listen; they will learn about presumptions and burdens of proof; they will weigh facts; and they will acquit.

Jurors walk in with a healthy dose of skepticism. Depending on the county, the skepticism is either against the defendant or against the police. The art of the trial, from a defense view, is to draw the skepticism against the Commonwealth's proof. Depending on the facts, it can and does work.

Judges on the other hand, particularly in small rural counties, will hammer defendants with impunity. When a jury walks into a courtroom, the demeanor of everyone in the room changes. It's like throwing open the windows in a mausoleum.

[happyslug]

12. That might be true, of Cambria Counties Five Judge's Three are ex-DAs

The fourth is an ex Public Defender and the Fifth is our first female judge. I dealt with her mostly on Custody and Visitation cases but she did more then that. Prior to winning election she had been the County Bar President and big into the Bar doing things for the Community.

Prior to the last election, the Five Judges had been Four ex-DAs and the ex-Public Defender (whose father had been a while know attorney for decades in this county, thus he had a lot of political connections in this County to overcome any DA who thought they could defeat him).

Judges being Ex-DAs is the norm in most of Western Pennsylvania and as such I agree they tend to hammer Defendants, but they get that chance no matter who is CONVICTING the Defendants (Remember it is Judges who sentences Defendants NOT Juries). On the other hand I deal with them on non-Criminal matters and find them reasonable to work with (i.e. sign Protection from abuse Petitions, Sign petitions to stay evictions etc, handle Custody and Visitation disputes).

As I said above I never do criminal work and have NEVER had a jury in any of my cases, thus I have to go by what Lawyers who have done such cases tell me. As a general rule most defense attorneys I have talked to believe Juries want to convict.

[rug]

14. That's an interesting perspective.

Pike has only two Common Pleas judges. One is also an ex-DA who handles all the criminal cases. I do some custody and PFAs as well and there is a definite difference in how they approach noncriminal cases (less of a difference in PFAs where there is often a pending criminal charge).

Good luck out there. Maybe we'll cross paths someday.

[H2O Man]

5. Respectfully disagree.

I have numerous relatives, friends, and associates who practice law. They all seem to favor juries.

[Pithlet]

7. Having just served on a jury I agree.

I would not put my fate in the hands of one. I don't think the jury I served on was bad. But it made me weary of the process.

[Wednesdays]

6. Ooh, I love that one!

A classic.