interesting jury duty experience

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
...the judge specifically told us that according to the (Maryland) law, circumstantial evidence is to be given just as much weight as non-circumstantial evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did the judge give any instructions in regards to the first count? Somebody mentioned that taking significant steps such as donning a mask and waiting in the weeds is sufficient. Did the judge, or either lawyer, address this?

Because I couldn't imagine reaching a verdict on that one without either a law degree, or having the law explained to us by the judge or prosecutor.

[gvibes]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't understand how the accused could be guilty of the first charge. Sure, it's pretty clear he was thinking about robbing the store, but he didn't and he didn't even really try. It sure looked like he was going to do something wrong, but he didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the law. If someone points a loaded gun at you, and pulls the trigger, but the gun jams, would you find that person innocent of attempted murder?

The Model Penal Code uses a "substantial steps" test, which gives a lot of leeway to a jury. I'm not sure if Maryland takes this route. Under the MPC, an attempt requires "conduct which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of the offense." I think sitting in the weeds outside the place at closing time, with a fake pistol, and a mask on, is definitely good enough. If a man were standing outside your window right now, carrying a knife and a lockpicking kit, and wearing a mask, you'd hope the police would be able to get him on more than trespassing.

The OP brings up an interesting point, that we don't know whether the guy was going to rob, or rape, or whatever. However, I think they could have got him on burglary in any event (basically, breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony - I think I got that right).


EDIT: - Maryland law - "Under Maryland law, a criminal attempt consists of a specific intent to commit the offense coupled with some overt act in furtherance of the intent which goes beyond mere preparation." I think the prosecution must have sucked here, for the prosecution to lose.

EDIT2: When I was 19, I was jury foreman on a little car accident case. It was fun.

[somethingstupid]

Is this legal? Sweet jesus. You are asking OOT for advice ON A [censored] TRIAL ON WHICH YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE JURY. I am disturbed by this.

[krazyace5]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this legal? Sweet jesus. You are asking OOT for advice ON A [censored] TRIAL ON WHICH YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE JURY. I am disturbed by this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its over....i'll be nice and say that is all.

[PhatTBoll]

gvibes,

I'm studying for the bar too and I think this is not attempted robbery. The MPC says that the "overt act" must be a "substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime."

I don't think anything he did could be reasonably said to "culminate in the commission of the crime." I think it is close though.

Definitely NOT burglary though. I suggest you look up the definition for this.

Edit: You could also make a case that the defendant has abandoned his attempt here, although we'd need more facts to see if that was the case.

[Duke]

1. Not guilty.

2. Not guilty.

Next?

~D

[Rhone]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...the judge specifically told us that according to the (Maryland) law, circumstantial evidence is to be given just as much weight as non-circumstantial evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did the judge give any instructions in regards to the first count? Somebody mentioned that taking significant steps such as donning a mask and waiting in the weeds is sufficient. Did the judge, or either lawyer, address this?

Because I couldn't imagine reaching a verdict on that one without either a law degree, or having the law explained to us by the judge or prosecutor.

[/ QUOTE ]

He explained the "substantial step" idea that gvibes and PhatTBoll are debating here. Our debate was over whether the guy's actions met that standard, and also whether even if he was "attempting" something, whether the state proved it was robbery as opposed to something else.

[Rhone]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this legal? Sweet jesus. You are asking OOT for advice ON A [censored] TRIAL ON WHICH YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE JURY. I am disturbed by this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, read.

[ QUOTE ]
This happened a couple of years ago

[/ QUOTE ]

[BadBoyBenny]

Sounds innocent to me based on the evidence you gave. The cops pushed their hand too early.

[Rhone]

[ QUOTE ]
The OP brings up an interesting point, that we don't know whether the guy was going to rob, or rape, or whatever. However, I think they could have got him on burglary in any event (basically, breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony - I think I got that right).

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it have been breaking and entering if he was waiting for an employee to open the back door? I don't know. The prosecution was really pushing the idea of what he was going to do once he was inside, rather than how he was going to enter. The restaurant was still technically open, so perhaps they would have had trouble arguing that the act of entering the place would have been illegal.

I'm just remembering something else about this trial that I found kind of interesting. The prosecutor asked each of the six or so police officers who testified what units they had served on in their careers. Most of them said they had been on the "repeat offenders unit" at some point. I thought this was kind of a slimy tactic, a backdoor way of telling us this guy had done bad things in the past when the prosecution wasn't allowed to do so directly.

Overall, though, a very interesting two days...