Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

> 25 years and hundreds of cases my father saw in criminal court, only one was _not_ convicted

That seems very wrong.

I agree.

By the way, the single case that did not end in conviction was of a black preacher accused of child molestation who had an all black jury.

And I'll bet most people reading this, trained by tv media's spectacular "everyone is guilty", are instantly and irreversibly convinced he actually was guilty just based on that one above sentence.

But if you don't believe me (as you obviously do not) please do take 5 minutes to call a random criminal defense attorney in LA and ask the conviction rate once the defendant enters a not guilty plea.

On one occasion, when I was in Jr High School, I was sent to the Principal's office.

The assistant Principal started discussing my punishment and I chimed in that I didn't do what I was accused of doing.

He said that the teacher wouldn't have used her time to send me to the office if I hadn't done what she said I did.

I said that the reason we have trials is because sometimes the authorities make mistakes.

He looked at me as if I had spoken to him in a foreign language.

Last time I sat on a jury, before the evidence was all presented and before the judge even read the law (happens after all the evidence is presented, where the judge reads what the law actually is and explains things like how sure you need to be to find in favor of one party or the other), I heard jurors mention they already had their mind made up.

They literally didn't even know what the crime actually was and were already ready to convict.

It made me realize I never want to go before a jury if I'm innocent (not sure if a judge is better or not, haven't experience on that end).

I'll do you one better. I was a former criminal defense attorney in LA and the conviction rate once a defendant entered a not guilty plea was roughly 60% (and took it to trial) at the time I practiced criminal defense.

Most people actually are guilty of the crimes they are charged with, and simply want to do their time and move on. A few are innocent, and most of them successfully defeat the charges against them, though it's not a popular topic online because it shatters the prevailing narrative. A very small portion of defendants that are innocent get convicted, usually because of their lawyer's incompetence and not because of overwhelming prosecutorial misconduct. The innocent defendants who plead guilty have themselves to blame--either they hired bad counsel, or they made the choice to plead despite the advice of counsel.

This is not to say that prosecutorial misconduct does not occur -- it happens quite frequently. But it's not something that most prosecutors engage in and it's very rarely something that affects the outcome of a case.

And if they can't afford to hire good counsel, it's presumably their fault for being accused of a crime whilst poor, then?

It could indicate that judges are overeager to convict, or it could indicate that prosecutors are unwilling to try someone they aren't really damn sure of. Or a combination of the two, or probably a bunch of other reasons.

Note that blind belief in the latter causes the former to happen: almost everyone in the courtroom including the jury (most criminal trials are jury trials) assumes the defendant is guilty otherwise he wouldn't be in court. The notion of assumed innocent until proven guilty does not actually exist in practice.

Additionally, many prosecutors, police and people in the criminal justice system believe that, even if the defendant is ambiguously guilty of the crime they are on trail for currently, they are certainly guilty of other crimes they are not currently on trial for. Thus shading information to get a conviction in an ambiguous case is sometimes viewed as a public service. Interestingly this part of problem is not the result of malice or even ambitious DAs.

> It could indicate that judges are overeager to convict

Judges don't convict, juries do.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

In the US one may demand trial by jury, but one may also opt for trial by judge.

http://litigation.findlaw.com/going-to-court/judge-versus-ju...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargaining_in_the_United_...

>Plea bargaining in the United States is very common; the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial.[1][2] They have also been increasing in frequency—they rose from 84% of federal cases in 1984 to 94% by 2001.[3]

Also note judges don't have to accept plea bargains.

Judges set the jury instructions, which define how the jury should interpret the evidence presented at trial. Much like "push" polls and leading questions, the instructions can be written in a way that all but guarantees a finding of innocence or guilt.

Are all US (criminal) court cases jury cases? Must be noted that this is only true for the US and other common law states, a lot of countries do not have or have only very limited notions of juries.

In the US, if either the prosecution or defendant want a jury then there is a jury trial. In practice this means almost all criminal trials are jury trials. As an added note, juries are perceived to be dull witted and easily deceived compared to a judge with years of experience. On the other hand, many judges are elected so they may worry about how their decisions will look to the public, the public generally hates judges who do not convict (because tv tells them everyone is guilty). Other judges can be political appointees with strong opinions.

So each party in a case decides whether or not to have a jury based on these points.

To a limited extent, attorneys can ask to change judges. Judges are embarrassed when they are "papered" this way so this provides pressure not too be absurdly biased.

And finally, there are a few differences in laws and huge differences in both judges and jury around the US both in opinions and education level. Dare I say this is why patent cases all end up in East Texas.

On the other hand, many judges are elected so they may worry about how their decisions will look to the public, the public generally hates judges who do not convict (because tv tells them everyone is guilty).

I noticed this about 20 years ago. Campaign ads for judges usually focused on how "tough on crime" they were as opposed to how "fair and trustworthy" they were.

I lost what little respect I had for the legal system when I watched a prosecutor argue that two convicted men should remain in prison and one should remain on death row despite newly discovered exculpatory DNA evidence and new evidence of police and jury misconduct because "The system" needed finality.

This is assuming your case goes to trial. I'd assume 99% cases don't ever reach that stage. Plea bargains are also marketed as a way to save resources and keep the justice system from getting backed up. Most people take a plea bargain if their charges aren't dropped.

If it came to that, a trial by judge versus a trial by jury might have a better outcome than relying on a group of laymen who just want to go home to decide your fate.

Most civil and criminal cases are adjudicated by a judge alone.

Yes, thanks. I should have said "courts".

I don't know about the US, but in Germany it is definitely the "damn sure" case for the overwhelming number of all trials.

If only because over 25 years surely he would have made it into the thousands of cases, unless he's doing less than one a week.

Or very right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com