Can a jury find a defendant guilty on a charge for which the defendant was not arraigned? Can a jury find a defendant guilty on a charge for which the defendant was not arraigned? For example, if a defendant is indicted on a charge of manslaughter can the jury convict him of murder?
Short Answer A defendant cannot be found guilty on a charge for which the defendant was not arraigned, but this reality is a trivial matter whose sole practical effect is to prevent trials in absentia. There is also a buried second question implicit in the example given but not actually stated in as many words: Can a defendant be convicted of crimes for which an indictment or information is not secured? The answer to that buried second question is no, subject to the exception that a defendant may be convicted of a lesser included charge relative to one for which an information or indictment is secured and upon which the defendant is arraigned. A lesser included charge is a crime for which all the elements must be established to prove the greater charge, but the converse is not true. Thus, if someone is charged only with manslaughter in an indictment to which they plead not guilty, they cannot be convicted of murder. But, if someone is charged with murder in an indictment, to which they plead not guilty, they can be convicted of either murder or manslaughter which is a lesser included charge relative to a murder charge. Long Answer Basically, the criminal justice process goes through the following steps in a felony case (some of which may be omitted in misdemeanor and/or petty offense cases): Someone is charged with a crime in a criminal complaint and arrested. These two events can occur in either order. If the complaint is made first, an arrest warrant will be issued by a magistrate and form the basis for a subsequent arrest and booking. If an arrest is made first, usually because a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe a crime was committed, the criminal complaint will be drawn up once the defendant has been arrested and booked. After both events in step 1 are complete, a first appearance of the defendant in person before a magistrate or judge is held in a matter of one to three days, or even a matter of hours, at which counsel is appointed if the defendant is indigent, the defendant is formally advised of the charges in the criminal complaint, and bail is set (or denied for cause or waived). Confusingly a first appearance is sometimes called an &quot;arraignment on the complaint&quot;, but I am assuming that your question used the term &quot;arraignment&quot; in the predominant sense of an arraignment on an information or indictment. Then, in felony cases (but not misdemeanors), the criminal complaint is reviewed for probable cause following a preliminary hearing and if probable cause is found to exist it is converted to an &quot;information&quot; (if the preliminary hearing is waived by the defendant, the complaint is automatically converted to an &quot;information&quot;); or a grand jury reviews the criminal complaint for probable cause and if probable cause is found to exist it is converted to an &quot;indictment.&quot; The defendant is arraigned in person on the information or indictment. In an arraignment, the defendant is formally informed of the charges in the information or indictment, and the defendant enters a preliminary plea to each of the charges in the information or indictment. This would typically take five minutes to half an hour, depending upon the number of charges brought. Pre-trial proceedings (e.g., &quot;discovery&quot; and motion practice), if any, are conducted by the lawyers for the prosecution and the defense. A trial is held (if the defendant demands it, before a jury). Caveat: There are also more steps prior to the filing of a criminal complaint or arrest (related to searches, seizures and interrogations), and there are also more steps after the trial (related to sentencing, appeals and collateral attacks on convictions and the sealing of records and pardons and commutations), but none of those steps are pertinent to this question. A jury trial would simply never be (definitively and officially) scheduled until an arraignment of the defendant was conducted. So, while it is true that a jury trial would not be conducted on charges in an indictment until the defendant is arraigned (i.e., until the defendant enters a plea to the probable cause screened charges), in the ordinary course, this is a trivial matter. But, because criminal trials can only be conducted after a defendant has been arraigned in person, the only time that a defendant can be tried in abstentia (i.e., without being present at the trial), is when the defendant is arraigned and enters a not guilty plea or the equivalent, and then absconds after that points but before the trial is conducted. (I'm not a complete expert on this, it may be necessary for the defendant to be present when the trial is commenced as well, but I don't need to know to answer this question.) Also, while the requirement of an indictment by a grand jury for felonies exists in federal court under the U.S. Constitution, and in some state courts (mostly in the Eastern U.S.) under state constitutions, the U.S. Constitution permits a state to substitute a preliminary hearing giving rise to an &quot;information&quot; for a grand jury indictment if its state constitution permits. My source for this post is a hard copy of the book Israel, Kamisar and LaFave, Criminal Procedure and the Constitution (1994). But, these basic principles have been in place unchanged for a very long time.
So I found information from a law firm in Florida about Hit and Run Cases. You definitely want a lawyer as it is a $500 fine and/or 60 days in jail for your case (property damage, no injury or loss of life). The good news is that if you can argue the case correctly, it's very easy to get a Not Guilty verdict. Under Florida Law, a Hit and Run must meet the following criteria to legally find someone guilty: Disputes as to the identity of the driver; Lack of knowledge that a crash occurred; Lack of knowledge that an impact occurred with persons or property; The failure to stop was not willful, but was dictated by circumstances; The defendant stopped as close as possible to the site of the accident; The other driver refused to receive identifying information The other driver became belligerent, necessitating that the defendant leave the scene to call police; The assistance rendered was ‘reasonable’ within the meaning of the statute. Given that you had no lack of knowledge that a crash occurred (2) AND lack of knowledge that an impact occurred with persons or property (3.) AND you would have stopped but for the circumstances of the event prevented you from recieiving knowledge of that the crash had occured (4) you already fail to meet 3 of the 8 criteria. This should be easy to argue in and of itself, but where you need a lawyer to assist is in criteria 7. While you were never fearing the other driver to such a degree that you needed to call the police, his behavior was interpreted by you as "road rage" and you had a reasonable fear to not wish to engage him. It's not rules as written, but it could be that the rules allow for leaving the scene because of the plaintiff's behavior and could be valid in other forms. I'll admit, this will vary wildly on the judge's own interpretation of that rule, BUT it's worth a try. Keep in mind with all of these, the Prosecution will be required to prove all 8 facts against you, while you only have to disprove one, to some level of doubt. As an armchair jury, I have no facts to support your story, but I have no facts to doubt it either. And when doubt happens, you must assume innocence. It would help if you had any hint of the officers attitude at the time. Was he friendly? Dismissive? Distracted? What was the guy who hit you's attitude towards the situation? Was he constantly yelling at you and the officer? Was he quiet and separated? Either way, get a lawyer because 60 days of jail time and a $500 fine is not something you want to fight by yourself. Make calls (the ticketing officer should have a work number or other contact information on the ticket.). Notify the insurance company of the fact that it was cited as hit and run but not proven... it could make the difference of who's company is to pay (It will be his if there was no Hit and Run).
Jurors cannot directly disqualify each other. However, they can inform the trial judge if they have reason to believe that one of their peers should be discharged. The judge will then allow the lawyers for both sides to ask the juror questions before deciding to dismiss them. In some jurisdictions, the judge may be required to hold a hearing to examine the evidence. Jurors may also be charged with contempt of court for interfering with a defendant's right to a fair trial, and could be disqualified from jury service in the future. Your examples of juror misconduct point at bias or refusal to deliberate, e.g. when the juror has made up their mind ahead of time (but not because they are using faulty logic). Depending on the jurisdiction, the trial may continue with a smaller jury. In some jurisdictions, the judge will have to declare a mistrial if no replacement juror can be found. See: Juror misconduct
The burden for proving claims in civil actions is "preponderance of evidence," i.e., merely that "more than 50% of the evidence favors a conclusion." However, the standard for conviction of any crime is "beyond a reasonable doubt." I.e., if the defense can raise reasonable doubt about one's guilt then the defendant should be acquitted. There is quite a bit of space between the two standards, which is compounded by prosecutorial discretion to even bring criminal charges.
In the United States, jeopardy attaches to a criminal trial when a jury is empanelled, the first witness is sworn in or guilty plea is accepted. Before that point the prosecution can dismiss the case without prejudice, allowing for charges to be brought again. After that point the prosecution can only dismiss the case with prejudice, effectively resulting in an acquittal and preventing a new trial on the same charges or charges based on the same facts.
How would jury selection work for a trial of Donald Trump? Just like it does for everybody else - using the rules for criminal procedure in the relevant jurisdiction. For example, in New York, each juror must be fair and unbiased: A juror who cannot provide unequivocal assurance or whose credibility about the assurance is in doubt would properly be excused for cause. Jurors (like judges) are not blank slates; they have opinions about all sorts of things. That doesn't matter. What matters is if they can set those opinions aside and make a decision based only on the evidence. It is not necessary for juror's minds to be empty, just that they be open.
Yes, there is a good chance. Ordinarily, the law as written is what is enforced. On occasion, the wording of the law is actually ambiguous, or vague, which means that the jury will need an instruction as to how to interpret the law. In fact, juries are not literally read the statute, they are given a set of decision-making instructions so that they can decide "If we find X, we must acquit; if we find Y we may convict". Your attorney will, if he is diligent, note the problem and strive for an instruction that favors the client. (The prosecution will of course object). Eventually, on appeal, a court will decide what the law "really means", and that decision might be strictly based on the letter of the law, or it might be based on a supposed spirit of the law, i.e. what the legislature "originally intended". That outcome is determined in part by the jurisprudential ideology of the prevailing justices of the appeals court. Usually, letter of the law prevails until a higher court rules that a particular "spirit" is what was originally intended.
Yes, but ... How can you know for sure? Let's say I'm charged with, and acquitted of, murder. Immediately after my acquittal, I confess to the crime describing how I did it and producing tangible and material evidence like the murder weapon, etc. So, did I commit murder? Well, we can't say. All we can say is that if I were tried again with all this new evidence, I'd probably be convicted but we can never know for sure because that trial isn't going to happen. Examples of people who (possibly) evaded justice due to double jeopardy Isaac Turnbaugh, O J Simpson, Fong Foo, Mel Ignatow This Unnamed Queensland man (double jeopardy can be waived under Queensland law when there is new &quot;clear and compelling evidence&quot; - the court found the evidence was neither clear nor compelling), Sharone Sylvester Brown. On the other side of the ledger, Michael Weir was the first person convicted after the UK changed its double jeopardy laws in 2005 allowing the Court of Appeal to grant a retrial if &quot;new, compelling, reliable and substantial evidence&quot; had emerged.