Coverage of BMarsh trial

…that women on juries are typicaly harder on women as witnesses and defendants.

Working in law enforcement (as I do now), I can tell you that the women I work with are much better at getting to the bottom of a woman’s story than we guys are. I see a crying woman with a hard luck story, and at least my first reaction is to want to help. My female colleagues skip that right away, and are instantly trying to assess the truth (which is what any investigator should be doing).

BTW, if this trial is criminal (not civil), the standard of proof is higher than just whom the jury believes. To come to trial, there has to be enough evidence to convince the prosecutor, and there has to be enough that the judge allows the case to proceed. Even if the jury seems to base a decision on whom they tend to believe (preponderance), the judge can at anytime end the trial or over rule the jury for lack of evidence.

The Georgia Constitution provides the right to a jury. Article I Paragraph XI. A typical jury consists of 12 jurors UNLESS the General Assembly prescribes any number, not less than six, for courts of limited jurisdiction and in superior courts in misdemeanor cases.

Remember that BMarsh is being tried for a misdemeanor, not a felony.

The timeline is typically presentation of evidence by witnesses brought by the prosecution, then cross-examination of witnesses by the defense. The prosecutor may or may not re-examine the witness after the defense cross-examination. If so, then the defense may ask questions again as long as they are in the scope of the questions and answers previously presented.

Next up is the defense presentation of evidence by witnesses brought by the defense, cross-examination of those witnesses by the prosecution, and possible re-examination and re-cross.

Once the evidence is presented, good practice calls for the prosecutor to ask for a directed verdict of guilty. That means the Court makes the decision of guilty without the assistance of the jury. This rarely is granted. On the other hand, after the prosecutor closes his arguments, the defense also asks for a directed verdict of not guilty. (See Georgia Statutes O.C.G.A. 9-11-50) Again the Court makes the decision and a directed verdict is often granted.

The jury gets the case after closing arguments and after the Court gives the case to them for deliberation.

In civil cases, the “burden of proof” is typically the “preponderance” of evidence. That means basically that all things being equal, the greater weight or more credible evidence or more convincing evidence favors either the prosecution or the defense. Nothing is determined until the “burden” of proving something is met. This is NOT a civil case.

In criminal cases, the “burden of proof” is typically “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This means basically that the evidence necessary for a conviction has been fully satisfied, entirely convincing, and satisfied to a moral certainty that guilt is established. Each state has a slightly different definition, but they are generally the same for purposes of this brief post. BMarsh’s cases, while only a misdemeanor, IS a criminal case.

One interesting thing about a 6-member jury is that it MUST be a unanimous decision. 12-member juries do not always have to bring a unanimous decision. So the answer to your question is, if there is no unanimous decision then BMarsh goes free.

The jury may return a not guilty verdict or a guilty verdict on each charge presented to it. However, even if the jury returns a guilty verdict good practice by the defense is to ask for a judgment notwitnstanding the verdict dismissing the case. Such a motion is usually made on legal grounds rather than evidentiary grounds. An example might be for prosecutorial misconduct for failing to reveal all the evidence in its possession that might have exonerated BMarsh.

Finally, even if there is a guilty verdict there may not be a severe punishment. The Court may decide to impose a small fine, or a fine with some probation, or some other light sentence that may ultimately result in his criminal record being expunged.

Judges and juries are somewhat unpredictible. However, I have never lost in court because I’ve always presented the best evidence and argued using applicable law to present the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I may not have always gotten everything I was asking for, but good practice demands that you should always ask for more than you expect but what is also reasonable. That combination always wins cases.

One thing I can tell you for sure. Judges and juries do not take kindly to evasiveness and lying. They will see right through you. Judges especially are presented with evasive and lying witnesses every day and are hyper-sensitive.

I just don’t remember if it’s the same situation. 11 arrests in like 4 years is a lot to keep track of. haha

Yeah. I don’t think Rasheeda is very credible. Steinberg is using those letters to attack her credibility.