Your "ethical rule order" is already a feature of American jurisprudence. Violating it is why this prosecutor is doing any time at all.

Not everywhere, and only recently. Brady violations are unfortunately still too common. Probably because the only punishment for it (before Ken Anderson) is that the DA might have a conviction overturned, later, if caught.

But apparently the judge has to make clear that an "ethical rule order" is in effect.

Under what circumstances, if any, would you convict?

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Got to come up with some darned good proof. Data has to be solid from objective, trusted sources -- right, tough to find.

Pattern jury instructions exist in most states to prevent arbitrary and unjustified decisions made by jurors. I don't agree with how they can be used in some cases, but you might be explicitly barred from making such decisions.

IANAL but my understanding is that on a jury there are deliberations and then votes. A juror gets to vote; doesn't have to explain the vote but just casts a vote.

If the judge can tell a juror how they must vote, then we don't need a jury. Else we have a jury, and the jurors get to vote.

Maybe the judge instructs the jurors to consider this, ignore that, on and on. But still a juror gets to vote and for reasons they don't have to explain.

It's our jury system. Maybe some lawyers, judges, etc. have had lots of biggie ideas about this and that legal detail about what would, could, should be the case for juries, instructions to the jurors, all sorts of this and that. Still a juror gets to sit in the jury box, watch the trial, think, think for themselves, and then vote and not explain their vote.

I know I've read this before, more-or-less, so I went and looked and found a couple of other instances:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178140 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10368962

At least it's not copy pasted, but the guy's solution is always to put himself on the jury.

> Jury?

That's basically why we have juries. I'm basically just saying that I would perform the role of a juror, maybe even a relatively skeptical juror.

I know very well that the police, prosecutor, and judges like to get convictions. Well, instead, as a citizen and juror, I like to get justice. E.g., if the system is unjust, I may be its next victim. I don't like to see injustices.

I know well that the police, prosecutor, and judge are pursuing their careers and are getting paid to do that. In particular, they are getting paid, getting publicity, promotions, progress in politics, etc. from getting convictions that indicate that they are solving crimes. And I know that they get paid the same whether the defendant is really guilty or innocent with essentially never any negative consequences for convicting an innocent person. And I know enough about human nature in a system to know that such people will sleep just fine convicting an innocent person because they can blame that on the system. Where such people can get into trouble is with an acquital, again, the same whether the defendant was guilty or innocent. So, net, those people want to convict and are ready, willing, able, and eager to lie, cheat, suppress or manufacture evidence, cut deals with convicted persons to get testimony, etc. to get convictions. It's adversarial, that is, a fight, right?

In particular, no way do I want some non-objective people out to rack up convictions, get headlines, promotions, reelections, votes for the mayor from being "tough on crime", have an easy way to claim that a case is "solved", etc. convict an innocent person.

I'm arriving at the court room with no preconceived notions about the guilt or innocence of the defendant but with a lot of strong notions about the adversarial nature of the mud wrestling match I'm about to view.

So, to get a conviction, the police and prosecutor will have to make a solid case and where I know that they are not objective, fair, honest, or interested in justice.

That the police and prosecutor brought the case cuts no ice with me, doesn't for a second make me suspect that the defendant is guilty.

And for a conviction, emotional appeals will seriously hurt the case of the police and prosecutor. My career is in math, with theorems and proofs, and computing: I long since concluded that emotional screaming does not a math proof make or a software bug fix.

E.g., there's the line in The Social Network where the lawyer tells Zuck that with some little remark he has "already lost the jury". Well, not with me. I don't care what the heck emotional this, gut twisting that, subtle some other thing, passion, pathos, poignancy, drama, etc.: I'm no more emotional than that granite column out front. I can work hard not to be emotional until there's a chance of convicting an innocent person.

Or, the prosecutor claims that the defendant has a rap sheet a mile long and has had various convictions before. But in this trial the question is what did the defendant do this time. To bring in the past of the defendant is clearly an attempt to bring emotion, maybe vengeance, retaliation, or retribution, into the case. Okay, prosecutor: I'm not convicting based on emotion, and you just lost your trust from me for objectivity, fairness, and rationality.

Sure, the judge can tell the jury this and that, but as a juror I'm still free to ignore what the judge says and obligated to vote as I see fit and not give reasons. The decision just is not up to the police, prosecutor, and judge. Instead, the decision is up to the jury. However important the police, prosecutor, and judge believe they are, the real responsibility is in the hands of the jury.

The Founding Fathers no doubt expected that 12 disinterested citizens would come to better decisions than hardly objective people interested in publicity, politics, promotions, etc.

With a juror, even the letter of the law doesn't have to count: If a juror believes that the law is absurd, then the juror is free to vote to acquit.

It's called the jury system. If I have to serve, I'll try to be a good juror.

Yeah, god forbid the US lowers its incarceration rates, the shame of the developed world...

Is s/he? It's one person, the majority just convict whatever they see.

Yes, he is.

He replaces an imperfect legal process with his personal whims and his "fuck the authorities" attitude.

If others followed him they'd be starting a new age of "la terreur".

That's a scary prospect. I guess that the judicial had better work hard to earn and keep the respect of citizens.

Excuse me but fuck the authorities. They're not stopping a terror, in the US they are running it. They need a lesson in humility.