210k views
2 votes
Although not true in all states, Florida requires a unanimous decision for a jury's verdict. Juries throughout our country can range anywhere from 6 to 12 members. Would a defendant like Clarence Gideon be better off with 12 members on the jury, or would he be better off to have fewer members? Explain your reasoning.

User AdamM
by
7.6k points

1 Answer

7 votes

Answer:

As Florida requires a unanimous decision for a jury's verdict, having more members on the jury could potentially increase the chances of a hung jury, where the jurors are unable to reach a unanimous decision. In the case of Clarence Gideon, who was famously represented by himself in court, having fewer members on the jury could potentially make it easier to persuade a majority of the jurors to his side. However, this would also mean that there is a greater chance of a biased or unfair outcome, as having fewer jurors may not necessarily provide a representative sample of the community. Ultimately, the decision of how many members to have on a jury would depend on a range of factors, including the severity of the charge, the complexity of the case, and the individual circumstances of the defendant.

Step-by-step explanation:

User Brambo
by
8.0k points
Welcome to QAmmunity.org, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of our community.