> It would result in juries that are prejudiced in favor of the defendant.
Um, yes, exactly. As opposed to now where the jury is prejudiced against the defense. Most jurors believe that you are guilty by virtue of being in the defendant chair; that needs some counteraction.
The government already has all the advantages--reports, police, enormous resources, and the charging authority.
Giving the defense a prejudiced jury would be a good starting point for counterbalance.
And, I don't think you would find the juries being that prejudiced at the end of the day, anyway. Most people are far too docile and believe the prosecution without any level of skepticism.
I see what you're saying, but I think it lacks perspective. Yes. the government has a lot of advantages, such as the ones you list. But remember that
a) A criminal jury verdict has to be unanimous. So the "defense's" jurors have to vote to convict along with the "government's." This is clearly designed to benefit the defense.to
b) The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof. Defendant friendly, to say the least.
c) Jurors are notoriously unpredictable. I don't know of any lawyer (and I know a lot of lawyers), whether a defense attorney or prosecutor, who would tell you that they can reliably predict what any given juror will do. The best you can do is ask questions like "do you think that anyone convicted of a crime is probably guilty" or "would you feel comfortable sending someone to jail" and remove the jurors who give the "wrong" answers to those questions. And note that these would typically be "strikes for cause," and therefore don't count against either side's total number of peremptory strikes.
Item A is not precisely accurate communication, because it is not voting in the sense of other voting. A criminal jury verdict has to be unanimous, but we send them to a sealed room and tell them 'Come back when you have a unanimous verdict.', rather than "Oh, you voted and disagreed? Well, Not Guilty then."
There is a strong understanding among the populace that a jury is a majoritarian body, that unanimity is a legal fiction, and that juries which can't effectively suppress dissenting opinions are failures in their social function, and we demand both extended "deliberation", and a completely new trial to correct their issue.
We even reinforce this understanding in caselaw; A last-ditch effort to un-"hang" a jury is termed an Allen Charge, which is apparently when the judge instructs the jury's minority vote that their position isn't reasonable while glaring at them menacingly.
Um, yes, exactly. As opposed to now where the jury is prejudiced against the defense. Most jurors believe that you are guilty by virtue of being in the defendant chair; that needs some counteraction.
The government already has all the advantages--reports, police, enormous resources, and the charging authority.
Giving the defense a prejudiced jury would be a good starting point for counterbalance.
And, I don't think you would find the juries being that prejudiced at the end of the day, anyway. Most people are far too docile and believe the prosecution without any level of skepticism.