Mutt

I really wasn't aware that this was a practice in the legal system whereby a jury could acquit an accused of the crime he was charged with but can choose to convict him on 'lesser charges'. I find it dubious justice, almost a 'double jeopardy' situation where a defendant is tried for the same alleged act twice.

The burden of proof is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. In many cases, serious cases, where there's not convincing and overwhelming evidence, the jury is left with reasonable doubt but may in their heart feel that the accused probably did commit the crime but they follow the law regarding reasonable doubt. They rightfully acquit the accused. Then they're presented with the option of convicting the accused on a 'lesser charge' - the jury might decide to convict on the lesser charge, feeling they did 'the right thing' . I am sure the judge when he charges the jury regarding convicting the accused on 'lesser charges' reminds them that the same burden of proof applies to the 'lesser charge' but I don't think that is entirely possible. The jury heard an entire case presented around one specific charge, in the Zimmerman case, 2nd degree murder not manslaughter. Suddenly at the end of the trial the jury's asked to replay and reconsider the entire trial in their minds with the accused this time charged with a different crime, manslaughter. I think once somebody has spared somebody from going to jail for life, that when given the opportunity to ONLY put him away for 20 years the 20 year sentence now seems like a good deal for the defendant, it could have been the rest of his life - thus making it easier psychological guilt wise on a jury to convict a man on a lesser charge.

Is this in every state/province? Every major criminal trial I've ever followed was based on one charge - the defendant either was found guilty or acquitted of the crime he was charged with, or a mistrial/hung jury.

__________________