Crm Jst 275 1st Edition Lecture 21Current LectureI. Jury Instructionsa. Judge gives instructions that:i. Reminds that the defendant is presumed innocent and the prosecution must have proved the defendant’s guild BARDii. Defines each of the elements of the crime(s)iii. Explains meaning of any affirmative defenses raisediv. Gives procedures to follow for deliberationv. Any “lesser included offenses”II. Deliberations: Determining Guilta. Conducted in secretb. Selection of foreperson: presides over votesc. Variations in how conducted:i. Some do an initial voteii. Others deliberate and weigh evidenceiii. Some vote openly, others by secret ballotIII. Research on Deliberationa. Liberation Hypothesisi. When prosecution evidence is strong=increased convictionii. When evidence is ambiguous/weak=increased uncertainty1. Jurors “liberated” from legal factors and take extralegal factors into account2. Especially with non-stranger casesiii. Jurors’ prior “baggage”These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.1. Rely on past experiences, perceptions2. Some evidence suggest extralegal factors matterIV. Unanimity and Hung Juriesa. Requirement of Unanimityi. Most states except Oregon and Louisianab. Hung Jury = unable to reach unanimous votei. AKA “deadlocked”ii. Rare: ~6-12% of all trialsiii. Based on:1. Complexity of the case and ambiguous evidence2. Group dynamics3. Concern if defendant treated fairlyc. Options after hung juryi. Prosecution dismisses (40%), plea offer (26%), new trial (33%)V. Announcing the Verdicta. Verdict reached: all parties return to courtb. Read by judge (or foreperson)i. If defendant is found not guilty:1. Defendant released2. Judge cannot overrule, state cannot appealii. If defendant is found guilty:1. Appeals can be filed (by defense)2. Judge can overturn if BARD not proven (directed acquittal)3. Sentencing phase scheduledCh. 12 – SentencingI. 5 Philosophies of Punishmenta. 2 major types:i. Retributionii. Utilitarian1. Deterrence2. Rehabilitation3. Incapacitation4. RestorationII. Why Punish? Retributiona. Just desserts philosophyi. Punishment must be proportionateii. Looks “backward,” no regard to future criminalityb. Morally right to punish law violatorsc. “Social Contract”i. Everyone responsible for own actionsii. If break law = break social contract (wronged society)III. Why Punish? Utilitariana. Concern: future criminality, preventionb. Deterrencei. Cost/benefit analysis – punishment outweighs any benefitii. 3 components: certainty, swiftness, severityiii. General and specificc. Incapacitationi. Prevent crime by locking up habitual offendersii. Selective incapacitation to protect societyd. Rehabilitationi. Crime stems from social/psychological problemsii. Goal: individualized treatment, assessments1. What problems = what programs for treatmentiii. Probation, pretrial diversione. Restorative Justicei. 3 elements:1. Crime is conflict/wrong between victim & offender2. Goal is repair injury/harm and reconcile parties3. Community involvement in the provesii. Sentencing circles, victim/offender mediationIV. How Much to Punish?a. The Retributive Approachi. Principle of proportionalityii. Based on seriousness of crime and culpability of defendantb. The Utilitarian Approachi. Deterrence1. Sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the crimeii. Incapacitation1. Proportionate to the risk posed by the offenderiii. Rehabilitation1. Based on the offender’s need for treatment and potential for reformV. History of Sentencing Philosophiesa. Prior to the 19th century=retributionb. 19th century through the 1970’s=rehabilitationi. Development of juvenile courts, probationii. Linked with social work and indeterminate sentencec. 1970’s-today=blend of deterrence and incapacitationi. Martinsson’s (1974) “nothing works”ii. Mandatory minimums, 3 strikes laws, guidelinesVI. The Death Penaltya. 34 states and federal cases (not WI)b. Limited Crimes: Murder, treason, terrorismc. Key Cases on Constitutionality:i. Furman v. Georgia (1972)1. Arbitrary standards and mandatory sentence = unconstitutionalii. Gregg v. Georgia (1976)1. Constitutional if bifurcated trial process2. Phase 1 = trial, phase 2 = penalty phase3. Guided discretion statutes: aggravating and mitigating factors must be presentedd. Unconstitutionality issuesi. 8th amendment – does not violate (trop v. Dulles, 1958)ii. Not for rape (coke b. Georgia, 1977) (Kennedy v. Louisiana, 2008)iii. Not juveniles (Roper v. Simmons, 2005)iv. Not if IQ <70 (Atkins v. Virginia, 2002)e. Death Qualified Juries i. Must not be overtly opposed or support DPii. Additional time, measures during voir direiii. In reality:1. More likely male, white, higher education, conservative, believe in a just