If you were a member of a jury could you find somebody guilty, even if there wasn't enough evidence?

Ya but you shouldn't.

I was a jury where this motorcyclist was nearly cut off by a car pulling out of a gas station, the car pulled halfway into the lane, hit the brakes and backed up, the motorcyclist stopped in front of the car and pulled a gun on the guy and said "I'll f'ing kill you". The guy in the car went to find a cop. The cop drove down a street, found a motorcycle parked in a driveway, a car pulled up the house, the guy got out, the cop followed him in the house, found some weed on a table and, supposedly, the guy hid his gun in the laundry basket.

It was 10-2 in favor of guilty, me and 1 other guy were hold outs. After nearly 16 hours of deliberating, they finally convinced us to vote guilty.

Looking back, I don't think the guy was guilty. I feel like the cop just found the first parked motorcycle and decided that had to be it. In which case the guy shouldn't have been found guilty for the weed as going into the guys house was unwarranted.

He's currently on his 2nd of 2 years in prison.

A verdict of guilty or otherwise should be based solely on the evidence and the judge will direct the jury as to whether the evidence is sufficiently strong from a legal point of view. However if the defendant acts in court in the way you suggest it's well within the authority of the judge to send him down for contempt whether he's guilty of the crime of which he's charged.

You have to follow exactly the instructions given to you by a judge, who will tell you to find the defendant guilty only if you are sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the crime at hand.

Not your personal feelings of who he is, not your guess that he'll offend again, no opinions. Just the evidence and testimony before you. Otherwise the legal system would be a joke.

If you and the other jurists agree, go ahead and find him guilty. The judge can then throw out your verdict if there's not enough proof or the defendant can appeal. But if you and the other jurists feel very strongly that a guilty conviction is best for society and most just for the defendant, do it. Vote guilty but try to give your best reasons--otherwise, it will be overturned on appeal. Yet and still, even if overturned on appeal, you did what your conscience told you to do, you did what was right, you did what was fair, you can live with your decision, and the defendant will have the hassle of going through more maneuvers before he is off the hook.

Unless the prosecution made an airtight case that the defendant was guilty, I would have to vote to acquit based on a lack of evidence.

Being a scumbag is not enough of a reason to convict.

When you're in the jury box you are there to detrrmine one thing, and one thing only. Whether the defendent is guilty of committing the crime that he/she is being charged with. The only time previous criminal charges might come into play is during the sentencing period, if they are convicted.

Of course you could. But that is why the Appeals Courts exist, to ensure that juries do their duty and only consider the evidence.

The old Scottish verdict of "not proven" almost solves your dilemma. "We're sure you're guilty but the Crown Office hasn't managed to prove it"

Probably Guilty is not an acceptable verdict and neither is Scumbag needs to be taken out of circulation.

not guilty, because by law of you are in the jury you can only make a disicion on evidence. whether you wish to break that rule or not. this is a free country and that is my fav law no matter what.

No. The evidence alone must be considered.