Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: 6 Jurors versus 12 Jurors ... who will this benefit?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,057

    6 Jurors versus 12 Jurors ... who will this benefit?

    There will only be 6 jurors seated for this case, as it stands, to this date:

    Florida Statute 913.10 Number of jurors.
    --Twelve persons shall constitute a jury to try all capital cases, and six persons shall constitute a jury to try all other criminal cases.

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...913/ch0913.htm

    Florida typically seats only 6 jurors in a criminal case ... unless the death penalty is "on the table."

    Who will, if anyone, this benefit?

    Facts:

    The US Supreme Court decision in WILLIAMS v. FLORIDA, 399 U.S. 78 (1970) 399 U.S. 78, decided that a jury of 6 or more did not violate the defendants 6th Amendment right to a fair trial.

    To have a hung jury, only one juror would have to hold out. That is 1:6 odds versus (if the state had opted for the DP) a 1:12 odds, for KC to have a hung jury. It only takes one!!

    Who does this benefit in your opinion?
    Clue: Satsuma Edition

    It was the psycho-sicko in the trailer park with a brick-o-block!

    "Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter accusations" ~ "inside" motto of the CIA and the entire Anthony family!
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Can't believe she is 4!!



  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to one_hooah_wife For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    278
    It appears to me that it will benefit the prosecution by only having to convice 6jurors of guilt, rather than 12. The odds of getting one wacko, KC loving jury member are reduced by half!

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ks1 For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,057
    Some could look at it as fewer jurors seated ... fewer jurors to convince ... on either side!
    Clue: Satsuma Edition

    It was the psycho-sicko in the trailer park with a brick-o-block!

    "Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter accusations" ~ "inside" motto of the CIA and the entire Anthony family!
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Can't believe she is 4!!



  6. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    close to the beach :)
    Posts
    227
    We've talked about this on other threads when reference was made to "12 people."

    All trials (except dp) in Florida use only 6 jurors so the SA and defense attorney are used to this. In fact, I would say that the majority of SA's and Defense A's here in Florida have never tried a case with 12 jurors.

    On one side you can say that there are less people to convince of guilt and on the other side you can say there are less people to influence someone who has doubt. Personally, I don't think either side benefits one way or the other.
    JMO

    "I...am not...stopping anymore...for you...to get...a file"

    "It is not how these officers died that made them heroes, it is how they lived." Inscription on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, Washington, DC

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to dax For This Useful Post:


  8. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    550
    This really made my day. Instead of having 12, she will have 6.. this may be the reason why the took the DP off the table. The cards are stacked in the favor of the prosecution b/c it's 6 less folks to worry about.
    "She will be mutha of the year" Rick Anthony's response to Cindy

  9. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by ks1 View Post
    It appears to me that it will benefit the prosecution by only having to convice 6jurors of guilt, rather than 12. The odds of getting one wacko, KC loving jury member are reduced by half!


  10. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,785
    I'm amazed there will be only 6 jurrors. I've been here every day since July and never came across this info before. Duh.
    Hawk. My BFF

  11. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Friday For This Useful Post:


  12. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    654
    Is this only in Florida?

  13. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Manny View Post
    Is this only in Florida?
    Well, I have not looked at other state law ... and I am most familiar with TN and AL law .... so I do not know ... keep in mind this is a state's law matter ... for this case ... I Have referenced FL Law only!
    Clue: Satsuma Edition

    It was the psycho-sicko in the trailer park with a brick-o-block!

    "Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter accusations" ~ "inside" motto of the CIA and the entire Anthony family!
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Can't believe she is 4!!



  14. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,785
    Not to be a kill-joy but if I were the only hold-out against convicting someone, I'd be more willing to yield to the opposing opinion of 11 other people, than I would be willing to yield to the opposing opinion of only 5 others. I'm not implying that I'd been more intimidated if eleven people ganged up on me. Rather, I mean that I'd be more willing to doubt/question my own judgment if 11 people adamantly disagreed with me. If there were only 5 people who saw things the opposite of me, I'd be more inclined to shrug that off, stand firm, and try to bring them around.

    Lately, I notice I'm using a lot more words to try to explain myself, but not doing a better job of it. LOL. So, to reduce all the above to one sentence: I'd be more willing to question my own judgment if 11 other people thought I was dead-wrong, than I'd be if only 5 people thought that.
    Hawk. My BFF

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Friday For This Useful Post:


  16. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In a bubble.
    Posts
    2,293
    Seems to me that having only 6 jurors benefits the prosecution.

  17. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Friday View Post

    I'd be more willing to question my own judgment if 11 other people thought I was dead-wrong, than I'd be if only 5 people thought that.

    Certainly one way to look at it and I don't disagree.

    I think it works from both angles 50/50....


    But...

    What if you had two hold outs on a conviction in a group of 12 that you had to convince... or even three?

    Cutting the jury down to six, imo, cuts down on deliberation time.

    If I were a juror, I would rather deliberate with five other people than a group of twelve. With a smaller group, it's easier to discuss and you have less cross talk... To me, it's simply more focused.

  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Issi For This Useful Post:


  19. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,506
    I don't know if the 6:1 odds versus 12:1 odds works when talking about the chances of one juror holding out. I've long believed 12 people on a jury is too many, because instead of convincing 6 minds, you have to convince 12. We recently had a very important trial of a public official here. It was a mistrial because of 1 juror out of 12.. and this guy is so obviously guilty. Now taxpayers will have to cough up more cash to do it all over again.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to natsound For This Useful Post:

    dax

  21. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,128
    I have served on a jury of 12 in an other state and also on a jury of 6 in Florida. The jury of 6 was much easier.

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Marple For This Useful Post:


  23. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    525
    Altho I agree with Friday's comment, I also feel that lowering the number of jurors makes the jury feel more close. I know I would feel much closer with 5 other people I had come to sit with day after day than I would 11. Then during final deliberation to see those 5 other people felt she was guilty, I might be more keen to hearing them out and reconsidering than I would a larger amount of people I felt less of a connection with. That's JMO.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to trixi491 For This Useful Post:


  25. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    609
    Since the defense will be looking for a moron, it would seem to me that finding 1 in 6 would be harder than finding 1 in 12.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to NancyT For This Useful Post:


  27. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Issi View Post
    Certainly one way to look at it and I don't disagree.

    I think it works from both angles 50/50....


    But...

    What if you had two hold outs on a conviction in a group of 12 that you had to convince... or even three?

    Cutting the jury down to six, imo, cuts down on deliberation time.

    If I were a juror, I would rather deliberate with five other people than a group of twelve. With a smaller group, it's easier to discuss and you have less cross talk... To me, it's simply more focused.
    I don't disagree at all.
    Hawk. My BFF

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Friday For This Useful Post:


  29. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the prowl
    Posts
    25,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Friday View Post
    Not to be a kill-joy but if I were the only hold-out against convicting someone, I'd be more willing to yield to the opposing opinion of 11 other people, than I would be willing to yield to the opposing opinion of only 5 others. I'm not implying that I'd been more intimidated if eleven people ganged up on me. Rather, I mean that I'd be more willing to doubt/question my own judgment if 11 people adamantly disagreed with me. If there were only 5 people who saw things the opposite of me, I'd be more inclined to shrug that off, stand firm, and try to bring them around.

    Lately, I notice I'm using a lot more words to try to explain myself, but not doing a better job of it. LOL. So, to reduce all the above to one sentence: I'd be more willing to question my own judgment if 11 other people thought I was dead-wrong, than I'd be if only 5 people thought that.
    I understand what you're saying, and you bring up a good point.
    Rest in Peace
    Joey, Summer, Gianni & Joseph Mateo


  30. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the prowl
    Posts
    25,972
    Quote Originally Posted by DotsEyes View Post
    Seems to me that having only 6 jurors benefits the prosecution.
    I think it all goes back to who is on the jury and not necessarily the number of jurors. Even with only 6, the state still needs to carefully weed out the potential pro-defense ones during voir dire.
    Rest in Peace
    Joey, Summer, Gianni & Joseph Mateo


  31. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    3,907
    Good question.

    For anyone willing to wade through it, the U.S. Bureau of Justice provides a plethora of statistics here. I didn't see anything on a quick review that would help this discussion, but...it was a quick look.

    The best approach I can think of regarding this question would be to ask it in the extremes and see if it makes a difference.

    Would a jury of 1 benefit either?
    Would a jury of 1,000 benefit either?

    I can only give a biased answer, but, IMHO, when there is sufficient evidence to make the case - which I believe we'll see in this one - increasing the jury size has the effect of jury behavior increasingly simulating the behavior of the mass population and finding individuals whose definition of "reasonable" varies widely from the 'norm' and would therefore be willing to hold out for the defense.

    So...with no better argument than that...I'd say 6 benefits the SA more than the defense...if ever so slightly. Since the Supreme Court upheld it, perhaps there were some statistics presented @ the time showing no bias 6 vs. 12...maybe.

    You may also consider the juror selection process. Are there any benefits one way or the other in the selection process SA vs. defense? Selection...regardless of 6 or 12...is make or break.

  32. The Following User Says Thank You to BondJamesBond For This Useful Post:


  33. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Friday View Post
    I'm amazed there will be only 6 jurrors. I've been here every day since July and never came across this info before. Duh.
    ---------
    Thanks.

  34. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by Friday View Post
    Not to be a kill-joy but if I were the only hold-out against convicting someone, I'd be more willing to yield to the opposing opinion of 11 other people, than I would be willing to yield to the opposing opinion of only 5 others. I'm not implying that I'd been more intimidated if eleven people ganged up on me. Rather, I mean that I'd be more willing to doubt/question my own judgment if 11 people adamantly disagreed with me. If there were only 5 people who saw things the opposite of me, I'd be more inclined to shrug that off, stand firm, and try to bring them around.

    Lately, I notice I'm using a lot more words to try to explain myself, but not doing a better job of it. LOL. So, to reduce all the above to one sentence: I'd be more willing to question my own judgment if 11 other people thought I was dead-wrong, than I'd be if only 5 people thought that.
    bolded and color by me

    that's me everyday after lunch lol...anyways I agree with your whole post

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to MDdetective For This Useful Post:


  36. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,090
    Wow. I just can not believe a case like this would only have 6 jurors. I live in Texas and have served on civil and criminal juries, both of which consisted of 12 jurors. The criminal case was easy decision on guilt but punishment we bickered. Because ten of them went for max, I think the other two agreed more easily. If only 6 total jurors, I think it would have been harder to decide.

  37. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,029
    Wow, I now feel privileged to have sat on a Florida jury of 12. Heh.

    My situation was slightly different as we were selected to serve only during the penalty phase, as the original jury's recommendation was thrown out because of an inappropriate comment made by one of the lawyers.

    I thought it was a fairly seamless process, but by not having to determine guilt we merely had to reach a consensus. That's quite a bit easier.

    That said, I don't think a smaller jury benefits either side. The voir dire process is the same (as far as I'm aware) and it all has to do with the six (lucky, oh so lucky) selected for this trial. It seems like such a crapshoot. But you WOULD think that it's less likely to find a KC-lovah in a pool of six than of 12, like someone else said.

    So the more I think about this, the more I think it helps the prosecution. Maybe it's because I desperately want to believe that, but it only takes one to hang a jury, but you have to have a unaminous decision to convict. Easier to convince six, and whether you have a pool of six or 12, you can still have a holdout.

    So yeah. How's that for stream of consciousness?

  38. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeast US
    Posts
    2,256
    The way I see it is:
    The defense needs only one holdout to have a hung jury. With 6 jurors, they have only 6 chances for a hold out. If there were 12, they would have 12 chances to get that one hold out. I see it like lottery tickets. If I buy 12 I have more chances of winning than if I only buy 6.
    For this reason I think it benefits the state to have 6 jurors instead of 12.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The jurors
    By enigma in forum Darlie Routier
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-10-2007, 06:51 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •