Hey, Texas lawyers

[TUSooner]

In a non-capital, state criminal (I meant to add "felony") trial (attempted sexual assault, to be precise), how many jurors must vote "guilty" in order to convict the defendant? All 12? 10? 11?
I'll hang up an listen to your answers; citations to relevant rules of criminal procedure would be helpful. :D



I'd tell you more but Howzit wants to keep it hush-hush. I JEST!

[Widescreen]

Not an attorney, but the answer is none. Here in Texas, most crimes yield the death penalty - except illegal immigration whose participants are given nobel peace prizes as they cross our border. ;)

[TUSooner]

BZZZZZZZ!!!! Time's up!

"Not less than twelve jurors can render and return a verdict in a felony case." Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 36.29(a).

Sorry, there were no winners of today's prize, but stay tuned for our next exciting Texas law quiz!

[Fugue]

That Texas statute set is sure fun to look through. Eleventy-billion volumes.

[jk the sooner fan]

just got here, but it was an easy question.....

[OUDoc]

12

:D

[TUSooner]

just got here, but it was an easy question.....
I honestly didn't know. Back in the 1980s, I served on a Louisiana jury in a felony rape trial, and we were allowed to convict with 11 guilty votes and 1 not guilty. One old guy revealed in deliberations that he basically thought there was no such thing as rape 'cuz "them wimmins needs to git f***** and they likes it." :eek: :rolleyes:

[Taxman71]

I honestly didn't know. Back in the 1980s, I served on a Louisiana jury in a felony rape trial, and we were allowed to convict with 11 guilty votes and 1 not guilty. One old guy revealed in deliberations that he basically thought there was no such thing as rape 'cuz "them wimmins needs to git f***** and they likes it." :eek: :rolleyes:

Dean is from Louisiana?

[Frozen Sooner]

I honestly didn't know. Back in the 1980s, I served on a Louisiana jury in a felony rape trial, and we were allowed to convict with 11 guilty votes and 1 not guilty. One old guy revealed in deliberations that he basically thought there was no such thing as rape 'cuz "them wimmins needs to git f***** and they likes it." :eek: :rolleyes:

How in hell did the prosecution let that get through voir dire?

I thought that all criminal trials needed unanimity. Guess you learn something every day.

[Phil]

Well, it is Louisiana. Figures the French would allow convictions with less than unanimity. Bastards.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yeah, they don't even believe in common law.

Stupid Napoleon.

[TUSooner]

How in hell did the prosecution let that get through voir dire?

I thought that all criminal trials needed unanimity. Guess you learn something every day.
State defendants do not have a federal constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. See Johnson v. Louisiana 406 U.S. 356 (1972); Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972).

The guy on our jury was actually a former security guard, so the DA thought he'd be "prosecution friendly." Wrong. OK, he didn't actually SAY that about "wimmins likes it." but his persistent not guilty vote in the face of overwhelming evidence "strongly implied" that the concept of rape was foreign to him, or that guys just needed it sometimes, or something. The guy was a stone cold loony.

[Frozen Sooner]

State defendants do not have a federal constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. See Johnson v. Louisiana 406 U.S. 356 (1972); Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972).

The guy on our jury was actually a former security guard, so the DA thought he'd be "prosecution friendly." Wrong. OK, he didn't actually SAY that about "wimmins likes it." but his persistent not guilty vote in the face of overwhelming evidence "strongly implied" that the concept of rape was foreign to him, or that guys just needed it sometimes, or something. The guy was a stone cold loony.

Well there goes my plan to embezzle millions and just offer to split the money with one of the jurors.

[TUSooner]

Yeah, they don't even believe in common law.

Stupid Napoleon.
You mean y'all don't have usufructs and servitudes and noxal surrender and stuff ?? <shakes head>

[Frozen Sooner]

You mean y'all don't have usufructs and servitudes and noxal surrender and stuff ?? <shakes head>

Stop speaking French, surrender-monkey.

You just made all those words up, didn't you?

[Okla-homey]

I like that "covenant marriage" dealio they gots in Louisiana. I think part of our problem here in OK is that its too danged easy to get hitched and too easy to get a "marriage dissolution."

I'm not a big fan of "no-fault" deevorce. If low-down polecats knew that if they got caught slippin' around another trailer, they could get totally took to the proverbial cleaners in the divorce, instead of this "equitable division of property"...there might be less slippin' around, and more importantly, fewer divorces.

Just sayin'

[TUSooner]

Stop speaking French, surrender-monkey.

You just made all those words up, didn't you?
You know, you just AKSED for this

I think Yankees call a servitude an "easement"

Usufruct is like where Grandpa dies, and Sonny gets actual ownership of the farm, but by will Grandpa says that Grandma gets to keep living on the farm (usus) and enjoy its fruits (fructus) until she follows Grandpa, at which time ALL the ownership rights (usus, fructus, and abusus) go to Sonny.

Noxal surrender is an obsolete dealy that goes something like this. My dog ate your sheep, but I can satisfy my liability for the sheep by giving you my dog so you can kill it. or something. Like I said, it's an old old thing. And it;s been a long time since I had Louisiana property law, so I'm quiting and going home. :D

[Okla-homey]

see imbedded commentario


You know, you just AKSED for this

I think Yankees call a servitude an "easement"

Usufruct is like where Grandpa dies, and Sonny gets actual ownership of the farm, but by will Grandpa says that Grandma gets to keep living on the farm (usus) and enjoy its fruits (fructus) until she follows Grandpa, at which time ALL the ownership rights (usus, fructus, and abusus) go to Sonny.

Hell son, that's just a life estate for Granny and a vested remainder for Sonny. Leave it to the French to hang funky monikers on stuff a Frenchman (in the form of one William the Conqueror) set-up in the first place.

Noxal surrender is an obsolete dealy that goes something like this. My dog ate your sheep, but I can satisfy my liability for the sheep by giving you my dog so you can kill it. or something. Like I said, it's an old old thing. And it;s been a long time since I had Louisiana property law, so I'm quiting and going home.

That's some Old Testament stuff right there. Perhaps interestingly, similar dealios are codified in various Indian tribes' code right here in the Sooner State
:D

[Frozen Sooner]

I like that "covenant marriage" dealio they gots in Louisiana. I think part of our problem here in OK is that its too danged easy to get hitched and too easy to get a "marriage dissolution."

I'm not a big fan of "no-fault" deevorce. If low-down polecats knew that if they got caught slippin' around another trailer, they could get totally took to the proverbial cleaners in the divorce, instead of this "equitable division of property"...there might be less slippin' around, and more importantly, fewer divorces.

Just sayin'

Adultery is a symptom of the root causes of divorce, not a root cause in and of itself.

[Widescreen]

Usufruct is like where Grandpa dies, and Sonny gets actual ownership of the farm, but by will Grandpa says that Grandma gets to keep living on the farm (usus) and enjoy its fruits (fructus) until she follows Grandpa, at which time ALL the ownership rights (usus, fructus, and abusus) go to Sonny.
Leave it to the cajuns to have juicy fruit laws.

[Ike]

Adultery is a symptom of the root causes of divorce, not a root cause in and of itself.

true, but no-fault divorce laws, IMO, give people an easy excuse to not think about fixing the problems first and to just get out as soon as possible. Sometimes, getting out as soon as possible is certainly warranted, but I think in many cases marriages can be fixed and made stronger if the parties involved have some motivation to get over themselves and actually communicate.

[Okla-homey]

true, but no-fault divorce laws, IMO, give people an easy excuse to not think about fixing the problems first and to just get out as soon as possible. Sometimes, getting out as soon as possible is certainly warranted, but I think in many cases marriages can be fixed and made stronger if the parties involved have some motivation to get over themselves and actually communicate.

My sentiments exactly.

[Frozen Sooner]

true, but no-fault divorce laws, IMO, give people an easy excuse to not think about fixing the problems first and to just get out as soon as possible. Sometimes, getting out as soon as possible is certainly warranted, but I think in many cases marriages can be fixed and made stronger if the parties involved have some motivation to get over themselves and actually communicate.

I'd hate to think that my hypothetical wife's only motivation for staying with me was that she wouldn't get the house. I'd hate it even worse if I thought that was her only motivation for not cheating on me.

Divorce isn't too easy to obtain. Marriage is.

[Okla-homey]

I'd hate to think that my hypothetical wife's only motivation for staying with me was that she wouldn't get the house. I'd hate it even worse if I thought that was her only motivation for not cheating on me.

Divorce isn't too easy to obtain. Marriage is.

Yep, but the right to marry has been declared a "fundamental right" by SCOTUS, so it's danged dicey for a state to attempt any conditions on it.

Divorce, OTOH, can be made more difficult to obtain w/o fostering any Constitutional imbroglios.

I'm up for trying to make it troublesome to get, and for restoration of the fault system. Of course, my feminist sisteren would disagree. They started this "no-fault divorce" crap. Ironically, women are the ones who suffer most under the doctrine.

[Frozen Sooner]

Perhaps we could set up a de facto divorce system that wouldn't be de jure. Call it "Severance." Under severance, you don't have the ability to remarry, as you're already married. However, you are no longer presumptive next-of-kin and suchlike.

I dunno. I know I'm not a fan of the system as it currently stands, but I also know that I don't like the idea of the state forcing two people to stay together when one party wants out.

[Soonerus]

Texas lawyers noticibly absent since Black Friday.....

[soonerboomer93]

Well there goes my plan to embezzle millions and just offer to split the money with one of the jurors.


psst.. just split the 1 jurors share in 2 instead

[Okla-homey]

I dunno. I know I'm not a fan of the system as it currently stands, but I also know that I don't like the idea of the state forcing two people to stay together when one party wants out.

Not forcing anyone to stay together, just making it harder to get a divorce.

[TUSooner]

There's always the ever-popular ".38-calibre hot-lead divorce" :rolleyes:

[Okla-homey]

There's always the ever-popular ".38-calibre hot-lead divorce" :rolleyes:


Leading many hillbillies to state after 20 years of a horrid marriage..."Son, if I had killed that sumb1tch the first time he hit me, I'd be out of jail by now."

[TexasLidig8r]

Divorce, OTOH, can be made more difficult to obtain w/o fostering any Constitutional imbroglios.



Au contraire Pierre.

Slavery has been outlawed for many moons now.

:D