Jury Trials in Columbia Robbery Cases
When a person is facing robbery charges, they have a right to a trial. A case can be heard by a judge or a jury. Juries in Columbia robbery cases can strategically benefit a defendant. A person should consult an attorney to help them prepare for
If you are facing robbery charges and have elected to have a jury trial, it is essential that you speak with a skilled robbery attorney. A dedicated lawyer can fight the State’s evidence, review the case and your evidence, and prepare you for testimony if necessary.
Benefit of Trial by Jury
Strategically, it is better to have a case heard by a jury as opposed to having a judge. When the judge resolves all issues, it might not be in the defendant’s favor. Juries in Columbia robbery cases are beneficial for defendant’s because it is harder to convince 12 jurors to agree to the same outcome compared to having only one judge.
Having a jury come to a resolution on a robbery case is better because to convict somebody by law in Maryland, the state must convince all jurors beyond a reasonable doubt of the facts of the case. It is much easier to convince one judge than 12 jurors. When a robbery goes to trial, a defense attorney with experience handling these cases can maneuver the case towards a jury rather than to a judge.
Selecting Jury Pool
The judge assists in selecting the jury, so there are several factors a judge and the attorneys are looking for when they are selecting a jury pool. A judge can make determinations about whether a juror can be stricken for cause based on their biases towards the person on trial, prejudices against any of the witnesses, or their political or social views. The defense attorney in a jury trial looks for different things depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Common Characteristics of Jurors
It is difficult to identify the common characteristics a defense attorney would want jurors to have. In fact, common characteristics are not as helpful as having jurors from different walks of life with different backgrounds and experiences so they can have a healthy debate during the deliberation and bring their own world experiences to the case. A homogenous jury with the same beliefs is the same as having a judge who has one school of thought or life philosophy.
Process of Assembling a Jury
The process of assembling a jury can take days when there are many issues regarding the trial. Preconceived notions must be flushed out. When there is a straightforward case, issues of things like race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, criminal history, and things like that are not really relevant to the particular charges.
Diverse Jury Pool Impact Outcome of Case
The state needs to have all 12 jurors agree on the verdict for juries in Columbia robbery cases. The more experiences and the more diverse the background of the parties, the less likely it is that they agree on every single facet of the case. The diversity allows the likelihood that there is a debate in the jury room about any issues identified during the course of the trial. When the jury agrees beyond a reasonable doubt to the guilt of a particular party, the jury reached that agreement based on varying backgrounds as opposed to just one particular school of thought.
Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not defined in any way except with the language itself. That means it is the state’s burden to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The doubt is something that is found in reason. The way a judge describes it to jurors before their deliberation is that the doubt piggybacks off of a person’s decision-making with other important things that they are choosing like buying a home; buying a car; choosing a school; or deciding which babysitter is going to watch their children.