Just talked to a prosecutor who is interested in talking to prospective jurors about the "truth in sentencing" instructions in article 37.07, the ones that tell jurors about basic parole eligibility. I've never seen it done nor heard about it. Anyone ever do this? Wanna talk about it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnR:
the ones that tell jurors about basic parole eligibility

---

... and then instructs the jury that they cannot consider that law? Why would anyone want to touch THAT with a 10' pole?!?

I have never voir dired on 37.07 because I want to strike for cause any venireman who cannot "in the proper case" give the max. By talking about parole and good time, you greatly soften what "the max" is, and you are liable to allow in more namby pamb jurors.

However, I have explained 37.07 instructions to jurors in punishment arguments. I explain what "good time" is, and that this is one of the two unknowns to a jury, so that it is impossible to determine how long a particular crook will spend in TDC. I explain this is so, because the jury does not know how much "good time" is given for good behavior, whether it is, for example one extra hour off for every day of good behavior, or if it is 100 hundred days for each day of good behavior, or more, or less.

In a plain-Jane F-2, I give an example, which I tell them is nothing more than an example of how the law works. Suppose a fellow gets 20 years TDC, and after 2 actual years of incarceration, he has earned 3 years of good time. 3 + 2 = 5 years, which is 1/4th of the sentence he got of 20 years. At that time he would be eligible for parole, but being eligible does not mean the parole board will grant parole. Thus, all a jury's sentence does is set the outside time a defendant can be locked up. It is up to the prisoner, by his behavior, the TDC, by how much good time they award, and ultimately the parole board, whether to grant parole.

That's my explanation. I think it helps jurors give heavy sentences.

Also, I have objected when a defense atty. makes a statement like, "If you give my 20 y.o. client 20 years, he will be 40 before he gets out of prison." Such an argument is asking the jury to assume that if the def. is given the max, he will never get parole. This is asking to jury to speculate on the amount of parole he will or will not get, and that is contrary to the jury charge.

I like that objection. On the other hand, it would be accurate in a 3g case to say that a defendant will at least serve half but that the jury should not speculate as to how such a parole law will actually apply to the defendant.