WHY THE JURY NEVER HEARS THE UNEMBELLISHED TRUTH IN CRIMINAL TRIALS IN TAMPA BAY FLORIDA

Why is it that criminal trials are often the least likely place one can expect to find unembellished truth? Walk into any courtroom and you'll hear the judge harangue defense lawyers, prosecutors and witnesses with long lists of which bits of evidence, facts and circumstances are proper to present. Much of this happens outside the hearing of those lost-looking jurors, though as the trial progresses they become all too aware of what is obvious to everyone else in the courtroom - they're not really hearing all the evidence.

Pinellas County Jury searches for Truth

Clearly it's laudable that any good judge aims to give the defendant a fair trial, while other judges seem to not so much want a fair trial for the defendant a fair playing field where the prosecution always wins. Either way a judge will cloak most evidentiary decisions with language that's based on keeping out possible prejudicial information that might inflame those innocent jurors. The quest for fairness may entail not letting defense counsel ask worrisome questions about prior police misconduct or a judge could prevent prosecutors from bringing up a defendant's prior criminal history at least until the defendant takes the stand to testify in his own defense.

But as the judge parses thru layers of testimony and evidence - allowing this, denying that - those familiar with the actual facts of a case will find that the facts presented to the jury are oddly different than what really happened. How it happens may be a mystery but it always does. The mysterious result is damaging not only to the integrity of those involved, but also to the ends of justice itself. 

In criminal cases there's always a detective or police officer who testifies. These witnesses see that the actual facts become distorted until over time their sense of absolute truth and vital honesty erodes. Unfortunately all of those tied to the criminal justice system especially judges, defense attorneys and prosecutors suffer from observing the constant failure of truth. In fact, I even fear for the bailiffs who day after day hear multiple versions of facts - all but the truth - like courtroom clocks giving false time.

SUPREME COURT GRANTS CERT WHERE THE TRIAL JUDGE DECLARES A MISTRIAL IN A MURDER CASE WHEN THE JURY FOREWOMEN TELLS THE JUDGE HOW THE JURY HAS ALREADY VOTED: IS IT DOUBLE JEOPARDY TO TRY THE DEFENDANT AGAIN?

Oh, impartial jurors, please don't tell the Court what you've decided until you actually render your verdict at the end of the case otherwise bad things will happen possibly even this unfortunate result....
The Supreme Court granted certiorari this morning in the case of Alex Blueford v. Arkansas, 
No. 10-1320. 

The facts are as follows:

Petitioner Blueford was tried on a charge of capital murder. During jury deliberations the jury forewoman, in open court, informed the court that the jury had voted unanimously against the capital murder charge and against the lesser-included charge of first-degree murder, but that it was deadlocked on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. (oops!) 
The court declared a mistrial, and subsequently ruled that double jeopardy did not prevent a retrial on all charges. 

The defendant appealed interlocutorily

to the Arkansas Supreme Court, which affirmed. Blueford v. State, 2011Ark. 8, S.W.3d, 2011 WL 285805 (Ark. 2011).

Areas of Practice for Robert Hambrick - Attorney in Clearwater, FL
Criminal Defense Attorney and Trial Lawyer Crimes in Clearwater, FL
Definition: Certiorari, Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Legal Dictionary | Law.com
JuryBox.org - Explaining Jury Nullification as the Last Check and Balance

Jury behavior

Scholarly research on jury behavior in American non-capital criminal felony trials reveals that juror outcomes appear to track the opinions of the median juror, rather than the opinions of the extreme juror on the panel, although juries were required to render unanimous verdicts in the jurisdictions studied. Thus, although juries must render unanimous verdicts, in run-of-the-mill criminal trials they behave in practice as if they were operating using a majority rules voting system.

The Jury by John Morgan, 1861 This is a very talkative bunch of jurors...the one with the blue scarf on his head wants to convict my client, shame on you --- but the future foreman of the jury, that bright tall fellow right behind Mr. Bluescarf knows that my client is innocent and plans to dominate the jury and then if necessary,  invade Continental Europe to prove my client's innocence - Many Thanks.