Law regarding Judicial concealment of charges from jury

[Cymulacra]

In Iowa (USA) is there any violation in a judge instructing the court to avoid any mention of the level of severity of the charges, and specifically preventing the jury from knowing whether the charges are felony or misdemeanor? Seems to be an absurd instruction, and maybe it was simply an incitement to get an outburst from the defendant?

[notmartha]

It is not a violation for a judge not to disclose sentencing possibilities to a jury. It is actually the standard, called jury ignorance.

This standard has pros and cons. A jury is to determine, based on the facts given, not possible consequences, whether a defendant is innocent or guilty. Knowledgeable jurors also understand the process of jury nullification, whereas if they think the law itself is bogus, they can issue a not guilty verdict. But jurors may become subjective about their verdict if they don't agree with severity of charges or punishments.

It is in STATE'S best interest to keep the guilty verdicts coming, to keep the profits rolling in.

Here is a case in which a court refused to inform the jury that a defendent would be involuntarily committed if found guilty, adhering to the established axiom that it is inappropriate for a jury to consider or be informed about the consequences of its verdict.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/512/573/

[Cymulacra]

So the public has no right to know if a spitting-on-the-sidewalk case is an infraction, misdemeanor, or felony? Or is this covered by the a trial with a public invite and/or the transcript? I'm not sure miss liberty isn't running to the rape center on this one.

[notmartha]

So the public has no right to know if a spitting-on-the-sidewalk case is an infraction, misdemeanor, or felony?

The public has the right (and a juror has the responsibility) to understand the "crime" in question. That is not the same as a court having the obligation to provide that information.

I'm sure you are being facetious, but "crimes" are enumerated in code. Just look it up in your jurisdiction.

Example:

§ 18.2-322. Expectorating in public places.

No person shall spit, expectorate, or deposit any sputum, saliva, mucus, or any form of saliva or sputum upon the floor, stairways, or upon any part of any public building or place where the public assemble, or upon the floor of any part of any public conveyance, or upon any sidewalk abutting on any public street, alley or lane of any town or city.

Any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor.

[Cymulacra]

I sincerely appreciate your breadth and depth in legal knowledge. Legalexperts.com or whatever was difficult and is now gone, so the only way joe blow can get legal direction is to wildly guess local statutes or go to jail on the odd chance "the process" will "enumerate" a damn thing. Cops never prosecute on a single charge. They stack 'em. So your "enumeration" is truly that, with a list of trumps all aggravating each other. And thus, dear ladies and gentlemen, spitting on the sidewalk may indeed cause the removal of your so-called "natural rights." Either that, or there are a cram load of people who need to sue for unequal protections.

Along with that question, tho, is my confusion about jury instructions mandating full compliance with all elements of a law at contention, in order to confer ANY "reasonable doubt" upon the defendant. That is, why bother with anything within this large self-help legal website, if a judge can simply instruct the jury, in secret, that of all the situations known to commonly apply to a particular law, the defendant must show there could not have been any likelihood at all of the applicability of each of the elements of guilt, in order to confer a verdict of "not guilty." Is this not more than a de-facto incarceration industry, but is judgement by design? Why list elements of guilt in the post-trial instructions if a judge can simply require them to all be null, thus guaranteeing innocence?