Trending
During a meeting with a Blair County Assistant District Attorney, the ADA reiterated to me the unpredictability of jurors' decisions in sexual assault cases by telling me a horrific story.
Recently, the ADA led the prosecution in a rape case during which the defendant was acquitted even after admitting to initially lying to police about having intercourse with the alleged victim, only retracting that lie after DNA evidence proved otherwise. My reason for writing is not because of the jury's decision, but something much more concerning.
The ADA told me that a member of the jury informed a DA's employee that the jury was actually divided and could not come to a decision. Unfortunately, the jury members thought they were required to agree and because they could not, the default option had to be not guilty. Apparently, no jury member knew that if they couldn't agree, they could be considered a "hung jury" and the case would be retried.
I'm not blaming the jurors. I think some member of the court must explain the basic rules to juries before they make life-impacting decisions. I wonder who dropped the ball? If an entire jury was unaware of a "hung jury," I would assume nobody provided that information. This is one case in which a legally-ignorant jury unanimously chose not guilty, potentially acquitting a sexual assault perpetrator.
How many innocent people are in jail and how many guilty people are free because of this lack of knowledge? Doesn't this frighten you?
Elizabeth Rainey
Hollidaysburg