Wouldn't you expect a jury in a major murder trial to know what the word unanimous to mean? While I agree with this jury's final decision (though I would never agreed as a juror as I don't think hearsay should be admissable), I wonder about their ability to make a decision. They asked the judge to clarify the meaning of the word unanimous . The judge's answer?

quote:

After a brief discussion with attorneys the judge said he would respond with a note saying it "indicates the agreement of all on the matter at hand.''

Could it be that one jurist was undecided and didn't vote at all, and the ones that did vote were all in agreement? If no one votes to the other side (no one votes nay for instance), could the jury be questioning if that was a unanimous vote?

If that is the case, I think the judge was telling them that everyone had to agree, and one couldn't be undecided.

Just thinking about it. I don't know.

Better than the jury that, after deliberating for several days after a three-month trieal, came back to the courtroom.
"Have yu reached a decision?" asked the judge.
"We have, your honor."
"And what is your decision?"
"We decided not to mix in."

I suppose, Tom, though I think they are supposed to vote one way or another. If undecided, it goes to "not guilty."

I wonder if they thought there was a "legal" definition for "unanimous," which was different from the civilian one.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:
Better than the jury that, after deliberating for several days after a three-month trieal, came back to the courtroom.
"Have yu reached a decision?" asked the judge.
"We have, your honor."
"And what is your decision?"
"We decided not to mix in."

????
I don't understand this.

Nor do I. Presumably "mix in" has some US meaning.

It means the jury, after due deliberation, has decided they don't want to get involved. ( think "mix in" is a Yiddish expression, though I can't guarantee it. Think I saw it in Joy of Yinglish.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I suppose, Tom, though I think they are supposed to vote one way or another. If undecided, it goes to "not guilty."

I wonder if they thought there was a "legal" definition for "unanimous," which was different from the civilian one.

In many bodies, the chair often doesn't vote except if it would make or break a tie. I suppose that if the whole body, except the chair, voted the same way, the secretary might say it was unanimous.

It could have been only one jurist that was arguing about the definition, and they had to go to the judge to settle the argument. They can't really vote on the meaning of the instructions to the jury.

Just speculationg here.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:
think "mix in" is a Yiddish expression, though I can't guarantee it. [/i].

Yiddish Dictionary Online
English
mix in, be nosy (v.)
Yiddish
mishn zikh
מישן זיך

English
mix in, interfere (v.)
Yiddish
araynmishn zikh ∙
אַרײַנמישן זיך

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this site.

I sure didn't think "mix in" was a Yiddish phrase. I was surprised that very common phrase has not crossed the pond.

Tom, there was one holdout. You were right about that. However, 100% of the jurors must vote either "guilty" or "not guilty." If there is even one holdout, it's a "hung jury" and they go back to square one.

In this case, the holdout came around and they all voted "guilty."

If the accused genuinely felt that he or she had done nothing wrong, there would be no guile, so how could the jury find the accused guilty? Psychopathic, perhaps, but not guilty.

???

Guilty of murder?