The Jury That Tried to Give One Year Instead of Five

The Story, in David Anderson’s Words

My client’s previous conviction was a robbery approximately 10 years prior, back when he was a teenager. At the time of the trial, the maximum sentence was 5 years and the minimum was 5 years incarceration.

We tried the case, and the jury came back with a guilty verdict. At the time, Virginia juries recommended sentences in criminal cases — a system that gave citizens direct input into punishment. (Nowadays, Virginia defendants can opt to be sentenced directly by the jury.) My client’s jury was instructed that they had to give him 5 years.

One Year, Not Five

They went in the back, deliberated, and wrote one year on the sentencing order. Not 5 years. One year. They had heard the evidence, seen the defendant, understood the context — a teenage mistake from a decade ago — and decided that one year was enough.

The judge called the jury in, said that this was an impermissible sentence. He sent them back after re-instructing them they had to give my client 5 years.

What Happened Next

After a few questions sent to the judge from the jury room, they ultimately gave my client the 5 years. The mandatory minimum had prevailed. The jury’s attempt at mercy had been overruled.

After the case had concluded, one of the jurors asked to stay and address the court. The judge hesitated, but allowed the juror to speak.

“Had we known we had to give the client 5 years, we would have found him not guilty.”

— Juror addressing the court after the verdict

The juror also said after the trial that the jury had reasoned that they didn’t like the fact that the client was probably driving around with a gun when he wasn’t supposed to have one. But they thought they weren’t ruining his life because he was already a felon, and they had agreed to go easy on sentencing.

The Lesson

This jury tried to show mercy. When they found out they couldn’t, one of them said they would have acquitted instead. But by then it was too late. The verdict was already in.

1. Jurors can ask about sentencing ranges before deliberating.
2. Jurors can discuss sentencing consequences in the jury room.
3. If jurors believe the punishment is unjust, they can vote not guilty — but they must do so before the verdict is returned.

If this jury thought 5 years was too harsh, they could have voted not guilty. That’s what jury independence means — and it must be understood before the verdict, not after.