Ever wonder if the jury on a criminal trial is aware of the potential punishment the defendant faces if they convict? Here's some interesting case law on the subject.
1. State v. Carswell, 303 N.J.Super. 462 (App. Div. 1997) - It is well established that "jurors decide the facts in accordance with the law as instructed by the court, and the court determines the punishment to be imposed upon the finding of guilt." It is also well established that because a jury has no sentencing function, "it should be admonished to 'reach its verdict without regard to what sentence might be imposed.'" "Trial by jury in criminal cases in NJ and other states traditionally requires separation of the functions of a jury and the court in non-capital cases." Thus, a general rule has emerged that jurors are not to be informed as to the possible sentence of a defendant. [citations omitted]
This traditional rule is based upon the rationale that informing the jury would: (1) draw attention away from their chief function - to judge facts; (2) open the door to compromise verdicts; and (3) confuse the issue or issues to be decided. Another suggested reason is that the instruction is simply of no aid to the jury in determining one's guilt or innocence. [citations omitted]
2. State v. Cooper, 151 N.J. 326 (1997) - overruled State v. Brown, 138 N.J. 481 (1994) in that a guilt phase jury does not have to be instructed on potential sentences for non-capital offense. The Court refers to this as the "Ultimate Outcome Charge in Guilt Phase." The only time it appears permissible to inform the jury of the potential penalties is during voir dire.
3. 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law, Sec. 1868 - Even in the event that a jury asks questions concerning the punishment that will be imposed if the defendant is convicted, the court should remind the jury that it should reach its verdict without regard to what sentence will be imposed. If the jury makes a recommendation for mercy, the court should remind the jury that the recommendation is not binding, the jury has no sentencing function, and the jury should reach its verdict without regard to the sentence.
4. Stein, Closing Arguments 2d, Sec 1:87 - If the disposition of the sentence is for the court, and the jury has no concern in meting out punishment, discussion of that matter is not proper during argument. Neither the prosecution not defense can refer to sentencing possibilities of the court should certain verdicts be found, or of the court's ability to place the defendant on probation, and the defense is also prohibited from informing the jury of possible sentences that the defendant would face if convicted.
A skilled defense attorney is aware of this fact and will incorporate this factor into his or her litigation strategy.