[speaker001:] Hi.
[speaker002:] Okay. So, uh, with the issue of trial by jury, uh, I actually found the whole question about whether you need a, a unan-, a unanimous verdict in a criminal case to be somewhat interesting.
[speaker001:] Yeah, actually, I, I agree that [LAUGHTER] that's an interesting thing. I, I believe that's a, for, for civil suits it's not unanimous, right, but for, for criminal suits it's unanimous by federal law?
[speaker002:] I don't know if it's even true that it's always unanimous because I thought there were cases where, uh, I don't know if it's the difference between felonies and misdemeanors, but where it was okay for a state to have it like eleven out of twelve. [messy kind of inaccurate bracketing]
[speaker001:] Yeah, I actually thought I'd read that, too and that's why I phrased it that way.
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] I wonder, the difference, yeah, the difference could be that for, uh, state, if there is such a thing, state felonies versus federal felonies that federal, things that are under federal jurisdiction require the unanimous [inhaling] vote, and things that are under state jurisdiction, even criminal don't require, but I don't know what the, [inhaling] the laws, do you think that that's an unreasonable, uh, requirement that they be unanimous?
[speaker002:] Well, I'd be curious as to what the, uh, requirement for a, an acquittal is. And I, I don't think it would be wrong to say that eleven out of twelve can convict if there were something corresponding saying that if, you know, six or seven voted not guilty, then instead of it being a hung jury, that was an acquittal. But I don't know whether you need an, a unanimous, uh, vote of not guilty to acquit.
[speaker001:] Yeah, that, that would be an interesting change. It was also allow the, uh, idea that if you had one person who was, uh, very disagreeable that, I mean, it, it fundamentally changes the way the processing occurs because, uh, [inhaling] the fact that it's [breathing] w-, the, the principle is that the fact that it's unanimous insures the beyond a reasonable doubt, uh, criterion that it, uh, [lipsmack] increases the, the likelihood of getting the proper judgment. So, I, I think, if anything, it would have to be a very close to unanimous decision.
[speaker002:] Yeah, I'd agree with that. But I've never had the, the opportunity to serve on a jury, although I've been out here and registered for, I guess, about five years.
[speaker001:] Yeah, actually
[speaker002:] But,
[speaker001:] I, I thought that that would be very interesting thing to do. I would like to do that. I've been out here twenty some years and I've been called, uh, three different times, but I've never actually even made it into the, the jury box.
[speaker002:] Oh.
[speaker001:] And, because there have always been a number of people and, and I've never gotten up there to answer any of the questions. Uh, I, yeah, I also think that would be really good. I,
[speaker002:] Well, the people I know who have served have said that usually what ends up happening is that, you know, after initially finding out where people stand, that the whole deliberation usually results, if there is a, you know, something like a nine, three or, or more severe and, and the people in the majority trying to convince the minority that they're right
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] and in fact, I'm not sure that that's any more, uh, liable to get rid of the reasonable doubt than, than anything else.
[speaker001:] [Lipsmack] Well, the, the one thing that I know does seem to happen from people I've talked to on this, is that in the situation you just said where it's nine to three, or some such number, that there's, an effect starts being that there's starts being a lot of peer pressure
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] going on and that that, uh, peer pressure, and in some cases if it's a long trial, the desire of people to get out of there and not be stuck in there for a very long time, that people are changing their minds for the wrong reasons.
[speaker002:] Yeah, I'd
[speaker001:] Uh,
[speaker002:] read one book, I think it was calls TRIAL BY JURY [LAUGHTER] of all things, that, uh
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] went through and interviewed a bunch of jurors in some of the big cases, and in many cases looking at what had, at the evidence afterwards as to whether the decision was right, went back to the jurors, uh, based on the deliberations. Some of them did say that, you know, when they were the only one left opposing the verdict, uh, you know, everyone was getting on them so, so heavily that eventually they just gave in knowing that nothing they could do could stop it from either being the verdict everyone else was trying for or a hung jury because the one vote doesn't mean anything except the ability to not have a verdict.
[speaker001:] Yeah, I, I understand. You, you would hope that if you were in that situation that you'd have the moral fortitude, uh, to hold out if you believed that that was really the proper response. I think of the movie, uh, TWELVE ANGRY MEN.
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] You ever seen that movie?
[speaker002:] Yeah, once.
[speaker001:] Uh, [faint], yeah, it's, it's, it's exactly that situation where, uh, it's Henry Fonda and it's eleven to one and he's the one, I, I believe he was opposed to the conviction and, uh, and he held on and,