When did this 'lesser charges' thing start and is it in every state?

[Mutt]

I really wasn't aware that this was a practice in the legal system whereby a jury could acquit an accused of the crime he was charged with but can choose to convict him on 'lesser charges'. I find it dubious justice, almost a 'double jeopardy' situation where a defendant is tried for the same alleged act twice.

The burden of proof is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. In many cases, serious cases, where there's not convincing and overwhelming evidence, the jury is left with reasonable doubt but may in their heart feel that the accused probably did commit the crime but they follow the law regarding reasonable doubt. They rightfully acquit the accused. Then they're presented with the option of convicting the accused on a 'lesser charge' - the jury might decide to convict on the lesser charge, feeling they did 'the right thing' . I am sure the judge when he charges the jury regarding convicting the accused on 'lesser charges' reminds them that the same burden of proof applies to the 'lesser charge' but I don't think that is entirely possible. The jury heard an entire case presented around one specific charge, in the Zimmerman case, 2nd degree murder not manslaughter. Suddenly at the end of the trial the jury's asked to replay and reconsider the entire trial in their minds with the accused this time charged with a different crime, manslaughter. I think once somebody has spared somebody from going to jail for life, that when given the opportunity to ONLY put him away for 20 years the 20 year sentence now seems like a good deal for the defendant, it could have been the rest of his life - thus making it easier psychological guilt wise on a jury to convict a man on a lesser charge.

Is this in every state/province? Every major criminal trial I've ever followed was based on one charge - the defendant either was found guilty or acquitted of the crime he was charged with, or a mistrial/hung jury.

[Rochard]

Aren't you Canadian?

[Rochard]

Oh, Mutt, btw... Those pictures of Catie Minx you sent out to affilaites this morning via email... Were fucking hot!

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Aren't you Canadian?

Canadian and US law are very similar, both legal systems rooted in British law. Many top lawyers are licensed to practice in both countries.

[baddog]

Lesser charges are not always an option. The defense has to agree to let them be an option in most cases (I think).

Some states even allow for juries to say the law is wrong and give a not guilty verdict for that reason. (jury nullification)

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Canadian and US law are very similar, both legal systems rooted in British law. Many top lawyers are licensed to practice in both countries.

I know your police officers still ride horses, but now you have a legal system too?

I'm kidding. Americans know nothing about Canada. I know where your capital is but couldn't spell it to save my life. (I even visited there once.) But we never follow Canadian events - well, other than that train crash.

[sarettah]

From wikipedia (where I get all my legal advice):

Use in jury proceedings[edit]

In criminal jury trials, the court is permitted (but not required) to instruct jurors that they can find the defendant guilty of the most serious crime charged, or of a lesser included offense of that crime (in English law, this is termed an alternative verdict).

In murder cases, however, where a convicted defendant may face capital punishment, the United States Supreme Court has held that the court must instruct the jury that they may find the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense such as voluntary manslaughter.[1] The reasoning for this ruling is that jurors, given the options of convicting a less culpable killer or letting him go free, might opt to convict of a more serious crime than the facts warrant. Therefore, they must have at least one option that falls in between these extremes.

In the case in which the jury has the option of convicting a defendant accused of a violation of law where there is a lesser included offense, if the jury acquits the defendant of the more serious offense but is otherwise unable to reach a verdict (i.e., is hung) on the lesser included offense, the defendant may be retried if the prosecutor chooses, but only for the lesser included offense. If the jury finds the defendant not guilty of the lesser included offense, there would be no need to make a determination on the more serious offense, as acquittal of a lesser included offense automatically constitutes acquittal of the more serious offense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_included_offense

Sounds like it has always been there actually.

Edited in: The Supreme Court Case they mention is from 1980 so that is when the SC said it has to be used in murder cases.

.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I know your police officers still ride horses, but now you have a legal system too?

I'm kidding. Americans know nothing about Canada. I know where your capital is but couldn't spell it to save my life. (I even visited there once.) But we never follow Canadian events - well, other than that train crash.

Hey I saw a lot of the Calgary floods a couple of weeks back too.

.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by sarettah

From wikipedia (where I get all my legal advice):



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_included_offense

Sounds like it has always been there actually.

Edited in: The Supreme Court Case they mention is from 1980 so that is when the SC said it has to be used in murder cases.

.

This isn't a capital case

[mardigras]

Originally Posted by baddog

Lesser charges are not always an option. The defense has to agree to let them be an option in most cases (I think).

Some states even allow for juries to say the law is wrong and give a not guilty verdict for that reason. (jury nullification)

Yep, and it is not double jeopardy because they are only tried once.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by mardigras

Yep, and it is not double jeopardy because they are only tried once.

could argue that they are being tried twice simultaneously. of course the argument would fail i'm sure.

[mardigras]

Originally Posted by Mutt

could argue that they are being tried twice simultaneously. of course the argument would fail i'm sure.

Yeah, kinda
In many cases I bet the defendant is thrilled they have the option of conviction on lesser charges.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by mardigras

Yeah, kinda
In many cases I bet the defendant is thrilled they have the option of conviction on lesser charges.

well in this Zimmerman case it's the opposite, he'd beat the 2nd degree murder rap and walk free but with the lesser charges available he's probably going to get convicted of something and do serious jail time. of course without the lesser charges being available the prosecution would probably have never charged him with 2nd degree murder. when it's all or nothing you set the bar lower and a manslaughter charge would have been the choice.

sarettah's copy n paste from wikipedia says it's mandatory in capital crimes that there be lesser charges available because the assumption by the SC was that without the lesser charges option the jury has only two choices - death sentence or total freedom, and juries would lean towards more guilty verdicts not wanting to let somebody go totally free. that is the exact opposite of how i would feel if i was on a jury in a capital murder case, if there are only 2 choices and one is putting a man to death i'm going to lean heavily towards acquitting if there's ANY chance he's guilty. if you give me the option of a less charge that doesn't carry the death penalty I'm more likely to convict and send him to prison.