Hacker News Reader

So its the prosecutors job to decide what evidence is "questionable"? Words fail me. It is the job of the jury to test the evidence. The prosecutor puts forward his/her case with the laws which were broken and evidence that they think might prove they were.

In the UK we have Drunk Driving and Drug Driving as separate offences, so what happens when I crash my car and test positive for weed and booze (we have chemical tests for both - unlike America's strange obsession with an officers judgement), they both carry the same sentence, does the prosecutor just throw out one of them at random as they are similar but overlap?

"But psychologically, if the jury see that a person has been charged" that is a whole different discussion on the suitability of jury as a method of trial, for a case to get in front of a jury it must have some merits which can't be ignored. Also as a sidenote, you don't think people would form an opinion if they had already seen some guy "walk free" from an earlier trial, then ended up sitting on the jury for a similar but not trial, the jury would have their first case facts from the media which is even worse idea.

How about this:

The jury is not informed of the statue(s) the defendant is being charged with having violated except the most petty one for each category that the state is charging them with. For each applicable "petty" charge the jury finds the defendant guilty of then and only then is the jury then asked and tasked with determining if the defendant violated the next offense. So we still have one trial for numerous charges but the jury is focused on only one at a time and working on them in an escalating order.

I have this feeling that juries tend to start at the top most severe charge and whittle themselves done and if enough charges were made they may psychologically believe the defendant must be guilty of something. Working from the bottom up that pressure and psychology would be absent from the jury.

So the jury is informed the State believes a man is guilty of 1st degree murder and burglary. Judge tasks the jury with determining if the man broke into someones home, if yes, then the man took something of $xxx in value which determines the level of the burglary charge for sentencing purpuses. Next the judges asks about the killing charges, starting with manslaughter. Jury believes that defendant did in fact unlawfully kill another man. Then judge instructs them to determine if defendant premeditated the murder, etc... on up from manslaughter to 3rd degree homicide, 2nd degree homicide, first degree...

I realize that some laws may need to be rewritten to make this progressive application work.

EDIT: What I'm trying to say or do is: Don't provide biasing information ahead of time. Just like when doing software estimates you don't want a manager going to the dev team saying: hey we NEED these features can you give us an estimate, and oh we need it by the end of the month.

It may take longer for the jury to deliberate the entire case in this manner but it would prevent the "well the state thinks this man committed 40 crimes... he's got to be guilty of one so which one(s) should we pick" problem.

How is a separate trial for each charge different from double jeopardy? Part of the point of having the prosecutor bundle together all the possible charges is so there can be a single trial in which the truth comes out. How are you going to "lock in" the possible set of charges early on in such a way to prevent the prosecution from just digging up one more offense at the end of every trial ensuring the defendant never gets to go on with his/her life?

This tragedy is really bringing out the propensity of us Americans to try and find someone to blame for every bad thing that happens so we can prevent bad things from happening again. Unfortunately, there's a certain level of tragedy in this world that is just random and unavoidable. The hang-wringing isn't doing Aaron or his causes any good, it's just creating new victims and wasting a lot of time.

so there can be a single trial in which the truth comes out.

As a point of order, since trials are incredibly stressful and expensive for the accused, society isn't supposed to use them for "the truth to come out" or "to find out what happened."

The trial is where the state -- having decided internally that a person is guilty and must be punished -- goes to prove its case to a jury of the accused's peers, in an orderly courtroom where only pertinent evidence is allowed.

This probably backs up your point even more -- having multiple trials for the same thing is horrible for the accused.

If each charge is considered a different crime then double jeopardy wouldn't apply. Also, in the US at least, the justice system isn't about getting to the truth. It's about assigning blame for an act that is considered against the law. If you are charged with a crime then the prosecutor will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law and do their best to win by getting a conviction. The prosecutor will not necessarily go out of their way to prove your innocence by attempting to get to the truth. Both sides present their case and the jury, or maybe the judge, make a decision based on what they've been presented, regardless of what the truth might be.

>Or perhaps (I know many don't like this, especially the government) a separate trial for each charge.

This is a very bad idea. If the prosecutor can charge 13 crimes that are all substantially the same thing, they get 13 bites at the apple to try to convict you. I imagine it may also violate double jeopardy when the underlying actions for the crimes charged overlap, but I am not a lawyer.