This is why there are alternates, tho. If the judge says the evidence is there to convict then the jury doesn’t have a choice. If one juror is a holdout they just get replaced by an alternate.
Um. This is entirely inaccurate. I think you may have been misled.
The judge is the arbitor of law (only) during the guilt/innocence phase. The jury is the arbitor of fact (only). Only the jury can determine what the facts of the case are, not the judge. In this way, only the jury can determine if sufficient factual evidence exists to fulfill the elements of a crime.
Alternates take the place of jurors who leave (usually for health or family emergency), but jurors cannot be asked to leave because of their decisions in deliberation.
This is why there are alternates, tho. If the judge says the evidence is there to convict then the jury doesn’t have a choice. If one juror is a holdout they just get replaced by an alternate.
Um. This is entirely inaccurate. I think you may have been misled.
The judge is the arbitor of law (only) during the guilt/innocence phase. The jury is the arbitor of fact (only). Only the jury can determine what the facts of the case are, not the judge. In this way, only the jury can determine if sufficient factual evidence exists to fulfill the elements of a crime.
Alternates take the place of jurors who leave (usually for health or family emergency), but jurors cannot be asked to leave because of their decisions in deliberation.
Adding one other thing, a juror can be asked to leave for misconduct as well.