http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/373923.html

I've seen this sort of situation many times in the past. Seems to me that an additional source of information other than asshole lawyers would be a good thing.

12/3/2005 9:53:21 PM

Why would she have to look up a definition for "female sex organ"? That seems ridiculous... Not to mention what would happen if you searched for that online.

12/3/2005 10:06:16 PM

also....if someone brings in like a tape as evidence, the jury sometimes isnt even allowed to review it again, they arent allowed to have transcripts of stuff that was said in court, they cant review evidence, they only get to go on there notes

they cant look stuff up on the internet...its all bullshit

[Edited on December 3, 2005 at 10:11 PM. Reason : -]

12/3/2005 10:11:02 PM

It all starts with low juror pay.

12/3/2005 11:07:53 PM

That's awesome. The judge yelled at the juror, who then began to cry.

^^ When I was on a jury, all of the evidence was left for us in the jury room while we deliberated. The opportunity to re-hear testimony was available, but we had to ask the judge (which is something of a production).

Not looking stuff up on the internet isn't bullshit--it's there for the same reason that you can't read newspaper articles or discuss the case with others.

^ Yeah, but you get free Domino's pizza.

12/4/2005 12:32:06 PM

The answer is because the trial is strictly controlled. If you let the jurors consider anything other than what they heard at trial, then you run the risk of getting incorrect information, inadmissible shit, etc., influencing the jury's decision. The judge is the gatekeeper - he decides what gets to come in. If either side wanted the jury to consider it, they would have brought it up.

Quote :

""You did not listen, that's your problem," Jenkins said, slapping his desk. "How much more simple could it get?""

hahah

"Now I'm going to have the bailiff bring the chalkboard up here, and I want you to write one thousand times 'I will listen to the judge and do what he says.'"

[Edited on December 4, 2005 at 3:20 PM. Reason : add]

12/4/2005 3:17:21 PM

speaking of judges making funny remarks, I forgot to tell you Wolfpack2K that Judge Evelyn Hill got her ass suspended on Friday

12/4/2005 3:49:36 PM

If this woman gets to spend a night in jail, Hill should spend at least 3.

12/4/2005 4:06:46 PM

aww rats! I was looking forward to getting up to raleigh sometime and seeing her in action, heeh!

I could just see how she would have treated this juror. "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU, YOU DAMN WHORE BITCH!! Now stand in that corner while I beat your ass with this extension cord!!!"

12/4/2005 4:19:38 PM

I do think it's funny that it is a school asst. principal who probably berates children everyday just like that.

12/4/2005 4:54:51 PM

I caught that irony as well.

12/4/2005 10:12:38 PM

seriously. minus five for being this stupid, Pyro

12/4/2005 10:17:55 PM

I am very ignorant when it comes to the judicial process. I get the point, but it seems very counter-intuitive to someone like me that really researches any serious decision I have to make in advance. The idea of jurors having to silently watch a blatantly biased debate(biased information from both sides) and then choose whether or not to ruin a man's life offends my sensibilities.

That and I don't trust the legal system. From an outsider's perspective, it seems to be populated with lawyers getting rich from the suffering of others, judges and DA's that get little orgasms while enforcing their will on others and plaintiffs seeking vengeance or a quick buck. It's the redneck in me, I can't help it.

12/4/2005 10:33:41 PM

Well technically, the issue is hearsay and opportunity to defend. If a juror is getting information from a source that did not testify in court, that is hearsay and inadmissible. Similarly, since the defendant did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the website operator as to his expert credentials, his right to cross-examine has been violated.

Jurors need to only make decisions based on the information they are presented. It is controlled so that they only get the information that is legally allowed (so hearsay would be out), and for the purpose of ensuring the right to cross-examine.

12/4/2005 11:54:21 PM

I guess ideally a jury of your peers would be of judge quality. Then it would be ok for them to do outside research. But if all of our peers had the qualities of good judges we probably wouldn't have many cases for juries to hear.

I think calling a mistrial b/c a juror looked up the definition of sex organ may be stretching things a bit. Would an appelate court really have ruled this a mistrial? Is the issue that if she disobeyed the judges order in this instance she may have done it in other instances? I don't think a reasonable person would beleive she would be influenced by the definition of sex organ.

12/4/2005 11:57:35 PM

This may not be what happened in this case, but say she consulted NC law to find how female sex organ is defined in the law. Then what? Hard to call that hearsay. Of course, she could probably get that clarification from the judge.

12/5/2005 12:00:37 AM

Well it probably would still be hearsay. The instructions on the applicable law come from the judge.

The reason it is a mistrial automatically is because the jury considered evidence that was not produced at trial and that the defendant did not have an opportunity to cross-examine. That would have been automatic-reversal material if the judge had let it stand.

[Edited on December 5, 2005 at 1:14 AM. Reason : mistrial]

12/5/2005 1:12:35 AM

Okay, having never served jury duty, I have this question:

Say the prosecution is trying to execute a man for rape because he copted a feel of some itty bitty titty. They claim this is a "female sex organ", and therefore falls into the definition of 1st degree lock'em up and throw away the key rape. How would I go about asking for clarification about the definition of this term? Would I just stand up and say "point of order!"? Because I get the idea that that tends to piss off judges.

Also, where would my answer come from? Would the judge recite it from memory? Would the bailiff rush out to Xerox me a copy of the NC General Statutes? Or would the lawyers get back up and bicker about it more?

12/5/2005 6:49:22 AM

Well the judge has to give you instructions on the law immediately before deliberations. And if you are not clear about a point of law, then when you start deliberating the jury would send a note to the judge saying it is not clear about an instruction that the judge gave. The judge would call the attorneys into chambers, and would decide whether to give clarification on the point of law that you had a question about.

And the instructions are usually agreed to by the lawyers and the judge beforehand. They are either in standard form, such as "In order to find the defendant guilty you must find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt...", or are researched by the judge's law clerk (I did some of this). If you had a question, and the judge decided to give clarification, then he would probably have the law clerk research the applicable statute and precedents and would give an instruction based off that.

[Edited on December 5, 2005 at 4:21 PM. Reason : add]

12/5/2005 4:19:09 PM