Jurors, and the un-common sense

[Natey]

The thread http://www.thelaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51806 was closed, but I did want to say this:

If I were on the jury for this matter, I'd consider the probability of the person actually wanting to steal the item, e.g.
Prior similar offences?
Were other more expensive items paid for?
Was the item really small, and what is the likelihood that the item could have accidentally fallen and remained hidden in said large purse?

Often, only the superficial facts are considered ("unpaid item, outside the store") and an innocent person is forced to accept the lesser charges to avoid an over-zealous prosecution trying to win every case that comes their way to look good on the books. I've seen politicians touting their "success" rate on prosecuting cases, so it all begins to look like a numbers game after a while.

Hopefully, jurors will exercise that additional un-common sense than what the average prosecutor would like you to believe in some cases.

 

[mightymoose]

Jurors are given specific instruction as to what they are to consider and what must be proven. Jurors are not supposed to consider things that are not presented as evidence. They don't often have full background information of a defendant, just the relevant facts of the particular case.
A jury in a theft case would be read instructions that define "reasonable doubt" and that explain the elements of the crime that must be proven in order to convict, including the intent to deprive the owner of property.
Concealment of items and carrying them out a door are only circumstantial. They do not automatically prove intent. It is not hard for a prosecutor to make that argument toward intent, but it must be made well enough to overcome reasonable doubt created by the defense.
The question ultimately gets down to whether or not you trust a jury to pay attention and apply the rules as explained to them rather than to just "go with their gut".

 

[shrinkmaster]

Laws on shoplifting vary by state in some concealment alone is a crime. Its not cut and dry. I disagree with MM assumptions of nonguilt in the fitting room example. I have successfully stopped and seen cases over and over and I have yet to see a case won.

 

[mightymoose]

In the fitting room example, if the item truly fell into the bag accidentally and was forgotten then no crime occurred.
We may choose whether or not we believe the defense. If we choose to not believe it that still does not mean a crime occurred.
The scenario as given lacks intent. Absent intent there is no crime. A jury must weigh the evidence. The circumstances do not make it a slam dunk, though enough circumstances may to the scale.
In California I believe concealment is addressed under civil law.

 

[shrinkmaster]

If your example was true then no jury would ever convict anyone stopped in dressing room as they can say item fell into pursue, pocker, backpack etc. As I said I have NEVER seem one of these cases lost using your example of reasonable doubt