View Single Post
Old October 29, 2018, 10:23 PM   #21
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,085
Second, since members of the jury must agree on the verdict, the question of whether the defendant's actions were reasonable at least requires that the members of the jury reach some consensus on the question. So the conclusion will not be based solely on the private, subjective, perhaps idiosyncratic assessment of any one juror
This is true, however juries are funny creatures sometimes (as I'm sure you know). I have sat in on cases that were slam dunk (seemingly), that were found not guilty or mistrailed. Likewise, I have sat in on a case where there is no way I would convict, yet they returned a guilty verdict in less than an hour. But alas I am going into the weeds.

What is reasonable is inherently subjective. However I understand the "Objective reasonableness" standard and what it means. I also think it works quite well in the confines of appealate courts hearing cases based off of case law where the matter is fully understood. Not as much when applied by cops, prosecutors, State District Court Judges, and juries. IMO. In the end, the trier of facts are asked to determine what is "reasonable." Great care must be taken when your fate rests on what another person thinks is reasonable... or not reasonable.
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018
5whiskey is offline  
Page generated in 0.02950 seconds with 8 queries