Is there any legal or constitutional reason why the following idea could not be considered. Now currently a typical jury trial will consist of the prosecution presenting its case, the defense theirs and the jury goes off and considers it's verdict To speed things up - What if the jury retires after just the prosecution has presented, and if the jury agrees the person is innocent, then the defense has no job to do and the charged person can be released. However if anyone on the jury still expresses the slightest doubt, the trial continues as normal. Thoughts?
Lateral thinking. Don't know the US system but in the English and Australian and probably similar systems there is a process - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_case_to_answer - so your idea should work if it isn't already in place. Admittedly the English system isn't up to the jury to decide primarily, I think, because the judge is being asked to consider the weight of admissible evidence and likelihood of conviction by the jury. But should a jury hear the submission and decide on it? That's a very interesting question. I'll watch with interest.
a good attorney can indict a ham sandwich. may as well have a cop simply try and shoot them on the spot. its called due process btw.
hence outside his purview with the ability to toss the trial, which is the reigning atrocity in all civil cases today since most people do not appeal their cases due to legal costs. to have a "fair" trial one would first need to call a "jury" decide the "FACTS" regarding the admissibility of evidence, then another to try the case. As soon as you get a judge deciding ANYTHING cancer grows.
I have no problem with giving a jury a chance to decide if the legal fiction manufactured by the prosecution is literally, incredible.
the english legal system and form of government is RICO on its face, it began as a pyramid scam and that whole system will continue forever as a pyramid scam. (and for those who do not know american law is the english legal system)
I can only comment on criminal matters but the jury is usually there to consider the facts, not the judge. The judge does decide which evidence is admitted and which is excluded. I favour the French system on evidence where everything that is relevant is admitted but more weight is given to best evidence.
how does the judge make a decision about the evidence without determining facts? In any case? They cannot! Which is why I said if need be there should be 2 jurys though the same jury could certainly decide what is "admissible" and what is not according to law. I just seen a case where in a civil case the judge allowed everything into evidence even though the plaintif never averred to it by affidavit! Hence threw the case, prejudicing the defendant. and when he ojected she simply looked at him and said feel free to appeal it even though he read a supreme court case into the record barring her from proceeding. Its so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing bad in an american court its amazing. Have better odds with judge judy. The judicial short circuited due process and the rule of law and usurped the courts.
Also, IMHO, the gap in time between the end of the prosecution and beginning of defense would change the whole momentum of the trial. I think the way it's done now is much more practical.
