OxBlog

Friday, April 02, 2004

# Posted 10:31 AM by Patrick Belton  

LAWYERS WRITE BACK: At the start of the week, I posed an open question to our readers about why a jury couldn't be told what would happen to a woman they found to have been criminally insane. I wondered out loud whether this arrangement was meant to keep factual questions separate from questions of punishment, and then I very generously offered an insane woman drawn from the ranks of my own ex-girlfriends for the helpful person who would enlighten me.

The short result: (in the words of PS from Springfield). Yes. I’ll send the legal bill. (Thanks! You win Tiffany.)

More interesting result: most of our readers, or at least a good part of you, seem to be lawyers. This includes a Harvardienne practicing at a Bay area firm who writes "I assume the trial has been bifurcated into liability and damages/sentencing, as sometimes happens.  The idea is that the jury shouldn't be swayed by the extent of the penalty; the woman's guilt or innocence should hang on the evidence of her (alleged) crimes alone.  Happy to discuss this more if you like, but I'm really more interested in why your ex girlfriends are all insane.  Did dating you drive them crazy?"

Wow - while I recoil and ponder going off to become a Jesuit, let me note that Robert from An Inclination to Criticize offers the same analysis, then says "There is no need to reward me, as I've no desire to add to my coterie of insane ex-girlfriends, though I'm sure yours are quite nice." Awww.

The most detailed analysis comes from the author of CrosBlog, who's a state court prosecutor:
I'm sure you've received several answers to your question, but here's my take on it, (FWIW, I'm a state court prosecutor in Georgia.) 
 
I've also been a prosecutor in Missouri, where jurors actually recommend sentences.  When you deliver a closing argument, you also recommend a sentence to the jury, and they'll deliver a recommendation that the judge usually accepts.  Other states (Georgia included) bar it for the reason you've suggested:  If a jury feels that a mandatory sentence would be too extreme, they may acquit, even when the facts support a conviction.  In fact, it's caselaw in Georgia that if a jury specifically finds a defendant "guilty with leniency", it's reversible error to accept that verdict (the jury should have been sent back.)  (Benton v. State, 588 S.E.2d 267)
 
I suppose a good example of why is the Marcus Dixon case, which is a pretty big deal around here.  This link is probably as good an explanation as any.  Simply applying the facts to the law, Dixon appears guilty of aggravated child molestation.  However, it seems pretty clear that the jury would have ignored said law or said facts had they known he was going to get 10 years (the minimum sentence.) 
 
Hope this helps.  If I win, please donate the crazy ex-girlfriend to charity.  I'm married, and have my own crazy woman. 
Done! And thanks very much to everyone who wrote in!
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

Comments: Post a Comment


Home