You’re a juror in a murder trial. The man on trial is innocent… but the evidence points to him. What do you do?

[SolitarySolace]

As the case unfolds, you start to realize you may be the one truly responsible for the victim’s death—it was an accident, and no one suspects you. But the evidence will almost certainly convict the man on trial. You’re about to have your first child, and confessing could destroy your life. If you stay silent, an innocent man will go to prison.

Do you vote “Guilty” and keep your secret, or “Not Guilty” and risk exposing yourself?

(Inspired by the movie Juror #2)

Guilty

Not Guilty

Updates

1 y

The prosecution built its case using circumstantial evidence: a witness claimed the defendant was near the scene, he had a past with the victim that suggested a motive, and there were minor injuries interpreted as signs of a struggle. The cause of death was framed to imply direct violence, and despite inconsistencies, the details were enough to convince a jury—on the surface.

[NaultD]

I was a jury member of a self defense case. Basically land lord / boss was verbally altercation in the defense living space. Push came to shove and the land lord motion to reach behind his back and got shot before seeing what's behind him.

So that was the quick and dirty but to properly say the same thing takes 2 weeks with a dozen people saying Basically the same thing over and over again. So these hypothetical question dosen't work with how much work it takes in reality to determine the reality of the case.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/4VMVM3ppS0I

It's never going to be that smoking gun kinda case. That's why it takes weeks to convey a millisecond decision. Thats why there's 12 unanimous peers determine what is right or wrong.

So in my jury duty i mentioned before was mistrial. 12 didn't come to a finale conclusion. So as a psa have a level of passion for jury duty and respect the responsibility and duty of your service to your community. If you ever feel powerless over lawmakers they are ultimately powerless in that court room because the compression of reality is in the hands of the jury of peers and no one else. Basically where rubber meets the road.

[NaultD]

Watching jury #2

The jury selection was intrusive and egregious. Way more open-ended questions then do you beat your wife? Just the fact the guy was expecting was an easy excuse.

OK so the main character was there at the night of the incident. He should raise his hand and talk to the judge. I didn't know them personally but I was there that night." From there it would be a miss trial. End of movie.

after the miss trial he should hire a lawyer. "I Might of accidentally killed someone thinking it was a deer a year ago."

From there the state is the one burden with proof when you hold all the cards. It was an unforeseeable even unconfirmed accident. I don't see any jail time with the closure of an untimely death.

The state couldn't even prove you were drunk driving that night. Haven't finish the movie but in real world why this should be a movie in the first place.

[AviatorTom]

Negotiations in the juror room are not made public. I would vote for not guilty and not be swayed by the other jurors. If pressed for a reason, I would simply say that I don't trust all the evidence. It's likely the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict, and a mistrial would be called.

[StarWarGirl]

I can't let an innocent man spoil his whole life for things he never did. He may have his own future plans his dreams etc. I can't let all these just simply to vanish in this unfairness. Rather I will tell the truth and then I'll try to save myself from getting harsh punishment. Even if I won't be successful in doing so it would be far better for me than being guilty life long for spoiling somebody else when I could save him. That guilty conscience will haunt me forever.

[ArrowheadSW]

@StarWarGirl Right. In this hypothetical situation, one could quickly get a lawyer and be represented before making an official confession. Since it was an accident, I doubt the person who really did it and confessed, would get that harsh of a sentence.

[oldpigg]

Third-degree murder doesn't get you in jail anyway.

[SolitarySolace]

Let’s assume you’re in a state where it would put you away for life

[blackeagle007]

It’s felony so it does carry time

[blackeagle007]

This question doesn’t make sense. If the accused is innocent, then how would evidence say otherwise?

[SolitarySolace]

You’re the only one who knows the man is innocent. Everyone else doesn’t. You’re the only one who knows you’re the one who killed the victim and not the man on trial. Watch Juror #2 and you’ll understand what I’m talking about

[blackeagle007]

I’ll take you up on that I like those kind of shows anyway

[Dongie]

I fess up! Make a big fuckin scene and everything. I come out as passionate about right and wrong receiving leniency.

[Dargil]

How would you know he is innocent?

[SolitarySolace]

Watch the movie Juror #2

[Dargil]

You did not answer my question. This is even lazier than a link.

[exitseven]

if the victim was a dirtbag I would put him away.

[Manwomanmythmale]

Go ask your AI.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Render an O. J.-style verdict.

[blackeagle007]

Nullification “we have to protect our own”

[beefcakebradybatson]

@blackeagle007 As did honkkkies for centuries by all-white juries acquitting thuggish white murderers of black folk for centuries. Two (or more) can play your game, boyo !!!

[blackeagle007]

That’s also true. Thing is, it’s not illegal for juries to nullify. I bet anything jury will do the same for that guy who shot unitied care ceo

[jimmy2]

Vote has it