<story><title>Why Innocent People Plead Guilty</title><url>http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>bsder</author><text>The real problem is that we allow the prosecuting attorney to &amp;quot;strike&amp;quot; possible jurors from the juror pool.&lt;p&gt;The &lt;i&gt;defense&lt;/i&gt; should get this advantage, but the prosecution should not.  If the prosecution has to stack the jury to get a conviction, it doesn&amp;#x27;t have a proper case.&lt;p&gt;Another problem is that the prosecution is looking for easily influenced jurors rather than diligent ones.&lt;p&gt;Once had a hung jury on this where one juror was voting guilty and wouldn&amp;#x27;t budge.  Our take: &amp;quot;Look, yes, he is guilty of possession.  He had the drugs.  &lt;i&gt;BUT THAT&amp;#x27;S NOT WHAT HE&amp;#x27;S CHARGED WITH&lt;/i&gt;.  He&amp;#x27;s charged with conspiracy and he wasn&amp;#x27;t even in the country at the time the conspiracy was supposedly discussed.  The government &lt;i&gt;HASN&amp;#x27;T PROVED ITS CASE&lt;/i&gt;.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Nope.  Guilty.  Won&amp;#x27;t budge.  And she was a grand juror.  So much for the safety check of a grand jury.  Sigh.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>tzs</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t see how allowing prosecutors to strike jurors has anything at all to do with the problem. Prosecutors (and defense attorneys) only get a small number of peremptory strikes. They can strike more, but they have to give the judge an acceptable reason. A prosecutor cannot &amp;quot;stack the jury&amp;quot; via peremptory strikes.&lt;p&gt;You are essentially proposing that juries be selected by the defense. That would not result in impartial juries. It would result in juries that are prejudiced in favor of the defendant.&lt;p&gt;The real problem is mandatory minimum sentences.</text></comment>
<story><title>Why Innocent People Plead Guilty</title><url>http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>bsder</author><text>The real problem is that we allow the prosecuting attorney to &amp;quot;strike&amp;quot; possible jurors from the juror pool.&lt;p&gt;The &lt;i&gt;defense&lt;/i&gt; should get this advantage, but the prosecution should not.  If the prosecution has to stack the jury to get a conviction, it doesn&amp;#x27;t have a proper case.&lt;p&gt;Another problem is that the prosecution is looking for easily influenced jurors rather than diligent ones.&lt;p&gt;Once had a hung jury on this where one juror was voting guilty and wouldn&amp;#x27;t budge.  Our take: &amp;quot;Look, yes, he is guilty of possession.  He had the drugs.  &lt;i&gt;BUT THAT&amp;#x27;S NOT WHAT HE&amp;#x27;S CHARGED WITH&lt;/i&gt;.  He&amp;#x27;s charged with conspiracy and he wasn&amp;#x27;t even in the country at the time the conspiracy was supposedly discussed.  The government &lt;i&gt;HASN&amp;#x27;T PROVED ITS CASE&lt;/i&gt;.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Nope.  Guilty.  Won&amp;#x27;t budge.  And she was a grand juror.  So much for the safety check of a grand jury.  Sigh.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>vvpan</author><text>Well as I understand the article argues that all of this happens before the jury has any say? So you are talking of a separate problem?</text></comment>