When a jury finds a defendant guilty of bringing drugs into a prison but not guilty of possessing the same drugs, it’s an inconsistent verdict. In Florida, these kinds of verdicts are often allowed, even though they don’t make logical sense. Other states and the U.S. Supreme Court also allow inconsistent verdicts. In some cases, the jury’s verdict might not reflect their true beliefs. Sometimes an acquittal or conviction might be the result of compromise or a mistake. Florida courts have made a distinction between âtrueâ and ânot so trueâ inconsistent verdicts. They have created an exception to allow inconsistent verdicts to stand in certain situations. This seems like a result of lawyers overthinking things. It’s unclear why logic errors should be okay in some situations but not in others. In Gonzalez v. State, the court allowed inconsistent verdicts, meaning a defendant could be found guilty of some charges and acquitted of others. However, the court refused to uphold “true” inconsistent verdicts, which occur when an acquittal on one charge negates an essential element of another charge. An example of this is the case of Redondo v. State, where the defendant was found guilty of a lesser charge of simple battery but also found guilty of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The court overturned this verdict because the simple battery conviction negated an essential element of the possession charge. The exception to allowing inconsistent verdicts in court cases doesn’t make sense. It’s based on the idea that a wrongful conviction is more of a concern with factual inconsistencies than legal ones, but really, both could lead to a wrongful conviction. Appellate courts even have to guess at what the jurors were thinking when they made their decision. It’s not right to allow this kind of speculation. Our legal system allows for people serving as jurors to make mistakes, and sometimes their decisions may seem inconsistent. It’s unfair to only allow mistakes about the facts of a case, but not mistakes about the law. Judge Harris has a suggestion to help clarify confusion when jurors are deciding on charges that are legally connected. Jurors could be given an instruction to explain that they need to decide one charge before they can decide another one. This might help to prevent unintentional mistakes from happening. It could also give jurors better information and prevent confusing instructions that can lead to inconsistent verdicts. This would be a simple change that could make a big difference. In short, there are easy ways to deal with inconsistent verdicts, and we shouldn’t make it more complicated. Jurors should have the power to make their own decisions without interference from lawyers or judges. It’s up to the lawmakers to make sure the laws are clear for jurors to understand. In State v. Connelly, the juryâs rejection of an aggravating factor to find the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense was not legally inconsistent. The court cited several cases where similar verdicts were upheld. In Gonzalez v. State, the court held that convicting a defendant of robbery with a firearm while acquitting them of possession of a firearm during a felony did not require reversal. Other cases like Eaton and Redondo also addressed similar issues. In Powell, the court emphasized the importance of jury verdicts in criminal cases. Attorney Kimberly Nolen Hopkins, a board-certified appellate lawyer, focuses on capital appeals in Florida. This column was submitted by the Criminal Law Section. “Teach lawyers to do their job well and serve the public, make the legal system better, and improve the study of law.”
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/when-is-an-inconsistent-verdict-not-inconsistent/
Leave a Reply