2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

As a former Assistant Court Executive in California, which only allows unanimous verdicts by a 12-person jury, and now Trial Court Administrator for a judicial district in Oregon, the non-unanimous verdict is a new concept for me that I am not comfortable with.

I truly believe that a requirement for unanimity instills a higher sense of responsibility, as well as the imperative for cooperation among those selected to serve on a jury. Although I recognize the likelihood of a greater number of "hung" juries with a unanimous verdict requirement than we see with the 10-2 requirement (and we do see them), it is my personal belief that justice is better served with the expectation that all members of a jury panel will concur in a finding of guilty.

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context