The trial begins with the indicted charges. Lesser included offenses are options for defense only after the close of proof. They are almost always taken, as they allow the jury some "wiggle room." Otherwise you give it to the jury all or nothing. Usually a ballsya move
Edit: usually a ballsy move the defendant won't like, having just been confronted with the evidence and testimony against him or her.
I think my ideal system would be pretty well scoffed at, but a blind trial where age, sex, race, occupation, crap like that aren't known to the jury. The jury gets something like "Person A and Person B were involved in a scuffle. Person B used a non-lethal weapon on Person A, causing Person A some rather minor injuries, defined as X number of stitches. Person B then ran away with Person A's non-lethal weapon. At which point Person A fired five shots striking Person B x times, killing Person B. There is no evidence to suggest that Person A had any malice to Person B. Given these facts, do you believe Person A to be guilty of manslaughter?" If found guilty, then the appeal should be a full trial, where the jury either confirms or overturns the blind verdict. It'll be harder to overturn because you know that everyone sitting in front of you, as a jury, is technically guilty. But you'll also have the burden of then taking into account all the other stuff and deciding if the guilty charge still fits. That's my system.
Can a juror face charges for not disclosing an inability to even consider a guilty verdict until already seated through an entire trial?
I think you are misreading the note again. The juror is telling the judge that, after deliberations, he is not able to consider a guilty verdict because he does not think the accused is guilty. You should really read the article if you are going to talk about the article.
JT5's comments make it easier. Maybe not self defense but a quick reaction to a suspect who acted violently and was now "armed."
Cotton, I see what you're saying. This article is not the one I originally read: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-...er-scott-case/. It says, "Newman read the letter to the court in which the juror wrote he “can’t in good conscience approve a guilty verdict” and would not change his mind." That is not what the article I first saw on this said. Call me a liar or an illiterate, if you wish.
No. The judge tries to weed them out before voir dire. Then the lawyers spend much more effort. It isn't unusual for a prospective juror to volunteer such an opinion, knowing they're likeply to go home. I suppose a juror may be hell-bent on convicting anybody of anything, but in that case, who would ever know. Maybe he runs his mouth about it later and defendant wins motion for new ttial.
New trial. They all take an oath. So they're open to a perjury prosecution. Good luck with that. Not sure it's ever even been tried.
Well, you said, "Or even allow that it (the criminal justice system) might be flawed." read to me as suggesting that there are some unnamed persons who seem unwilling to even consider the idea that the criminal justice system may be somehow flawed, hence suggesting they believe it to be infallible. I was asking who had suggested such a thing, amongst those here, if any had done so.
I don't equate infallible and without flaw as being equal, so I can't answer your question. Would you like to rephrase it using words stated?
The answer that you were looking for was self reflection of your inability to understand the difference between infallible and flawless? Well, not to cause you any existential distress, but suppose an engineer designed a system to take 2 + 2, in base 10, and return that the summation is 5. The engineer would have created a flawless system, in that it was working exactly as intended. And yet it isn't infallible, because it always gives the wrong answer. So, if you would like to discuss something I've said, I'll be here, if not, feel free to look up images of Christmas trees, or lights, or whatever it is that you do in your free time.
