11-05-2014, 10:41 PM
It would be standard procedure, and entirely appropriate, for a judge not to discuss the range of punishment in front of a jury whose only job would be to decide guilt or innocence of the accused. Only if the jury was also called to set a punishment would the jury be instructed on the punishment range. I must confess I do not know if McMillan could have elected for a jury to assess punishment in New York.
In Texas, the accused does have that right. But there are many strategic reasons why a lawyer might counsel a client NOT to have a jury assess a sentence. For instance, in a case where the jury is liable to wind up angry after hearing the evidence, you might not want them to be picking a number. However, it doesn't seem like this case had an "angry jury."
It's easy to armchair QB a game afterwards, and a lot harder to pick a winning horse before the race begins. Same thing is true of trial work.
In Texas, the accused does have that right. But there are many strategic reasons why a lawyer might counsel a client NOT to have a jury assess a sentence. For instance, in a case where the jury is liable to wind up angry after hearing the evidence, you might not want them to be picking a number. However, it doesn't seem like this case had an "angry jury."
It's easy to armchair QB a game afterwards, and a lot harder to pick a winning horse before the race begins. Same thing is true of trial work.