>It annoys me that people keep saying in such cases "yeah, but you won't really get 50 years, even if they succeed".
If convicted you can certainly get 50 years because the of minimum sentencing rules. This is where you get juries saying after the trial "I had no idea he would be sentenced to 50 years - I thought he would only get a couple of months".
As a defendant your lawyer can't tell the jury the sentence you face if convicted - apparently if the jury knows you face a minimum of 50 years for a minor crime they might not be so keen to convict you!
That's why jury members shouldn't be the average, possibly dim, possibly outright stupid, possibly just apathetic person, but actually be required to posses at least a modicum of intelligence, so as to be able to research minimum sentences etc.
Yes, but if we make it easy for anyone who can fog a mirror to get out of serving in combination with throwing anyone off who the prosecution thinks might be able fog a mirror, then we can expect that who ever is left will have few problems.
My feeling is serving on a jury it is a bit like voting. I know it is unlikely that I am doing any good, but it is my duty to do my best in both circumstances.
If convicted you can certainly get 50 years because the of minimum sentencing rules. This is where you get juries saying after the trial "I had no idea he would be sentenced to 50 years - I thought he would only get a couple of months".
As a defendant your lawyer can't tell the jury the sentence you face if convicted - apparently if the jury knows you face a minimum of 50 years for a minor crime they might not be so keen to convict you!