What is the purpose of not having jury trials for juveniles? In the US, there is no right to trial by jury in juvenile court. I don't remember the SCOTUS case where that was decided, but IIRC the basis of the decision was that violations committed by juveniles are not &quot;crimes,&quot; and therefore do not fall under &quot;the trial of all crimes shall be by jury.&quot; While this is arguably a reasonable decision based on the letter of the law, it seems to obviously contradict the intent. Why would the government not want suspects under a certain age to be tried by a jury?
The government has the choice They can prosecute the child for a crime in the adult system and the defendant then has the right to a jury, or they can refer the matter to the juvenile justice system (JJS) in which case any sentence is administrative and rehabilitative, not criminal and punitive. Some jurisdictions have removed certain classes of crime from the JJS and others allow the prosecutor or the JJS judge to refer the matter to the adult system. You may argue that this is a distinction without a difference, however, SCOTUS did not agree in McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971). The fifth amendment says &quot;No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law&quot; and SCOTUS was satisfied that the JJS provided that. They were also satisfied that because the prosecution was not criminal, the sixth amendment's right to a jury trial was not engaged. The JJS was established around the turn of the 20th century out of a belief that juveniles were more amenable to rehabilitation and that juvenile crime was a product of lack of parental supervision and societal influences whereas adults made a conscious choice to be criminals. In theory, the idea was to create a more sympathetic and less adversarial system to allow orders that were aimed to promote rehabilitation rather than punishment. Its success in that regard has been, at best, mixed. With the rise in crime in the US (but also worldwide) from the 1970s to 1990s, it became more politically beneficial to be &quot;tough on crime&quot; and more children were diverted from the JJS to the adult system - especially if they were people of colour. Even though crime rates have crashed since the turn of the 21st century, this is still many politicians' go-to response.
So, as you say, these witnesses who try to help their buddy out may be committing perjury. Also, D himself, by lining this up, is probably on the hook for conspiracy to commit perjury and being complicit in perjury. Aside from that, I think your question is: would getting people to testify in a way that implies they did the crime lead to an acquittal for the murderer? The answer is: maybe. The jury will either vote to acquit or to convict. If the jury votes to acquit, then it's over. Double jeopardy protects D from being tried for murder again. But, if the jury votes to convict, the fact that D had his friends testifying in the way you suggest isn't going to get the conviction overturned on appeal because &quot;a reviewing court resolves neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts.&quot; People v. Young, 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181 (Cal. 2005). I haven't done a trial yet, but it strikes me that that might not be the greatest trial strategy. I think generally defense lawyers would prefer to make their client look the furthest thing from gang affiliated as possible. Don't lie to a court or ask anyone to lie to a court for you.
Nobody wants to be a juror. Well ... almost nobody. The pay is awful, the responsibilities are huge, the work is boring, and everybody else is telling where to go, when to go there and how long to stay. Plus you get the bonus of being in close quarters with 11 strangers with whom you (probably) have nothing in common. Judges know this. They don't let you off just because you don't want to be there. There are actually criteria that they apply (assuming it gets to the judge, most jurors who will be are excused before they get to the courthouse by administrative staff). For example, in NSW: In terms of the Jury Amendment Act 2010, you may have 'good cause' to be excused if: jury service would cause undue hardship or serious inconvenience to you or your family you have a disability that makes you unsuitable or incapable of effectively serving as a juror, without reasonable accommodation there is a conflict of interest or some other knowledge, acquaintance, or friendship that you have, which may result in your being perceived as lacking impartiality as a juror you have a permanent mental or physical impairment that makes you incapable of doing jury service, or that would injure your health if you were to do jury service. The sheriff may also consider excusing you in other circumstances, including if you: are a sole trader or contractor have care of school aged children and are unable to make other care arrangements are in an advanced stage of pregnancy and/or are having medical difficulties during your pregnancy have a medical condition which would make Jury service onerous are an emergency service operational employee are enrolled in education and need to attend lectures or exams, or you're living outside your jury district to undertake your studies have a mental or physical impairment are absent from New South Wales have transport difficulties, such as unsuitable or unavailable public transport are unable to read and understand English. If you don't meet the criteria, you won't be excused. Getting yourself "dismissed" There are plenty of ways I'm sure I could get myself dismissed; From the obviously like constantly shouting "hang them all" to the more 'subtle' like giving a dissertation on why I think jury nullification is such a swell idea. No. Those things will get you jailed for contempt of court until you agree to do your jury duty and not act like a dick. I tell the judge despite this fact I really don't want to be a juror because I think it would be boring and I prefer to sleep in on the mornings. So does the judge - if she has to be there, she's going to make damn sure you are too.
I think your confusion stems from assuming there is a universal definition of "minor" across laws, jurisdictions, and rights. 18 is the age of majority for the purpose of voting (26th Amendment), the death penalty, labor law (although age 14 is the minimum age for employment), and many other laws. But, 21 is the age required to buy alcohol in all states (by their own choice in order to receive highway funding). Nothing requires the age of majority to be consistent across different sections of code or statute or between jurisdictions (except when constitutionally prescribed, like voting age, or minimum age for certain elected offices). There are many counties that prohibit purchase of alcohol at any age. The age of consent varies between 14 and 18 across US states. Age 65 is a threshold for certain tax credits. You need to be 25 in order to be a member of the US House of Representatives, 30 to be a Senator, 35 to be President. You are only protected from age discrimination if you are 40 or older. Here is a rough list of various age-based thresholds for various rights, privileges, or responsibilities in the US. (I havn't vetted this whole list, and some are clearly satire, but the ones I know about are consistent with my understanding.)
Jurors don't have a "right" to jury nullification per-se. The "right" of jury nullification is really just a logical consequence of other rights that the jury and the defendant have The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal,[2] and the fact that jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return. In fact, the court doesn't want juries to nullify, because that undermines the rule of law, and they might penalize lawyers tho try to argue for nullification The 1895 decision in Sparf v. U.S.,[24] written by Justice John Marshall Harlan held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. It was a 5-4 decision. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present legal argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.[25] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States As far as how would juror's know about jury nullification, they could have read about the process before being selected for jury duty. Some Juries might also rule contrary to their instructions without actually having heard about jury nullification because they have some sort of sympathy with the defendant.
An "inquisitorial" system is one where the Judge or Magistrate actively questions the accused and witnesses to attempt to determine the facts. The Judge may also determine, at least in part, what witnesses to call in what order. An "adversarial" system is one in which each side presents its case, and the judge acts as an umpire deciding on procedure, and possibly makes the final ruling (or directs a jury to do so) but is not actively involved in questioning witnesses or deciding what witnesses to call. I don't see anything which would prevent a common-law jurisdiction from establishing an "inquisitorial" system by statute except longstanding tradition, but as far as i know no such jurisdiction has ever had such a system in place for dealing with criminal matters. The informal procedures in some small claims courts do have judges more actively involved than in other courts. I think this is also true in some family courts as well. I think I have heard of some civil-law jurisdictions which use something like an adversary system, but i am not sure of that. Certainly a civil-law country could pass a law setting up such a system if it chose to.
It's happened before in real life. Here is a 1994 article describing an Illinois criminal trial where defense counsel pulled the old switcheroo and sat a different person with him at the defense table instead of the defendant. The defendant, instead, sat somewhere else in the courtroom. After a witness misidentified the perp as the person at the defense table (not the defendant), the judge directed a not-guilty verdict to settle the case but sanctioned the defense attorney instead. The appellate and state supreme courts upheld the sanction (by a one-vote margin in both cases) but dissenting opinions noted counsel and defendant technically broke no rules. From the article: The dissent said Mr. Sotomayor's intent was only to show the unreliability of the prosecution's witness. Moreover, seating a client at counsel's table is customary but not required. Nor is a lawyer obliged [...] to help a witness make an identification. Also, here is a similar but not duplicate question.
In the case you link, this was given as an opening statement by the defense. Opening statements do not contain evidence. The defendant may or may not testify on their own behalf during the trial - this testimony, if given, counts as evidence, even if it is somewhat self-serving. And anything which tends to casts doubt as to the defendant's guilt is evidence that they didn't do it, even if it isn't proof. If there is reasonable doubt, then &quot;he didn't do it&quot; is not illogical. And it would seem unfair to allow the prosecution to say &quot;he did it&quot; but not allow the defense to say &quot;no he didn't&quot;.