Community Chat

[pigletsmom]

---

@Pearlee wrote:

Their discussing their experiences during deliberations is as big if not bigger no-no than not disclosing them on voir dire. Jurors need to decide the case on the evidence presented at trial, and not on their own or other jurors' experiences.

---

That's not necessarily true. You're allowed to use your common sense and life experience in the decision making and are told to do that. They were discussing why a witness would only remember certain things or something along those lines I believe. If they had honestly disclosed this info and made it onto the juty this wouldn't be unexpected.  

[Johnnyeager]

Absolutely correct.   Jurors are most definitely allowed (and expected) to bring their life experiences into the courtroom and the deliberation room.  There are even court rulings affirming this to be so.

[Wsmom]

You are not allowed to withhold information during voir dire and then bring it into the jury room to influence other jurors.  As a juror you are only allowed to consider the evidence presented in the courtroom; not presented from other jurors.  She needs to have a new trial or this will just be overturned on appeal and that juror should be held in contempt of court.  So much wasted time and money.  The prosecutor should join in the motion to dismiss now to save all the taxpayers money.  Even if all the other jurors say under oath it didn't sway them, it still should be overturned.  

[hckynutjohn]

---

@Wsmom wrote:

You are not allowed to withhold information during voir dire and then bring it into the jury room to influence other jurors.  As a juror you are only allowed to consider the evidence presented in the courtroom; not presented from other jurors.  She needs to have a new trial or this will just be overturned on appeal and that juror should be held in contempt of court.  So much wasted time and money.  The prosecutor should join in the motion to dismiss now to save all the taxpayers money.  Even if all the other jurors say under oath it didn't sway them, it still should be overturned.  

@Wsmom 

During Voir Dire it is up to the attorneys to canvas the potential jurists. You say "withhold information" during Voir Dire, in the many I have been through! It is not up to the potential jurors to control what is asked, or bring up questions, unless asked.

You seem to view it as a debate where potential jurors and the attorney conducting the process carry on lengthy discussions. That was not the policy of the 15 or so panels that I sat through.

The lawyer conducting the proceedings does not want to hear stories from panelist, some like myself, long winded stories. The ones I sat on were given X amount of time to conduct their proceedings.

During deliberations to say jurists are confined to discuss(consider) "only the  evidence presented in the courtroom"? Sorry, that was nowhere in the Jury Instructions I was given on any of the 9 Jury Panels on which I sat, either the Civil or Criminal cases.

Not having sat on the Maxwell jury, I can only speak to my experiences, not some "possible hearsay" told by some media personality. Being personally familiar with with the Voir Dire process, and having sat in Deliberation Rooms are definitely an asset to an opinion, but not to ones being right or wrong.

Personal experiences pertaining to the  purpose of the trial are very relevant in the panalist's discussions of "said evidence". Each jurist deliberating has their own education, be it personal experience, or formal education. Each specific piece of evidence is not seen exactly the same by all members on the panel.

Every trial is not as "cut and dried" as many that have no personal experience of having sat in on a Deliberation of a Jury Panel. They can base their opinions only on 2nd or 3rd hand information heard by someone other the member of that Jury Panel.

hckynut 🏒

---

[Isobel Archer]

Apparently the question concerning previous experience with sex abuse was on the form and the jurors in question did not admit to having had such experience.

This whole thing is just way too convenient.  Looks like a set-up to me.

[Wsmom]

@hckynutjohn , I was a court reporter doing jury trials for over 40 years.  Can't tell you how many voir dires, trials, and jury instructions I've sat through.  I can't think of a one where they weren't asked specifically if they or anybody they knew had been the victim of or chaged with a crime similar to the one they were going to be a juror on.

I have also been a juror in both criminal and civil cases so am well aware of what happens in the jury room during deliberations and how people will try to discuss things they aren't supposed to.  Another juror always pointed out we were not to take that into consideration nor discuss it.

As you may go to your experience with the 15 or so panels you have sat on  I also go to my experience in many jury trials I have sat through from pretrial motions, every hearing outside of the presence of the jury, discussions with individucal jurors who want to have private discussions and off-the-record discussions about potential jurors.

So I do agree if neither side asked them if they or anybody they knew ever had similar experiences, or if any past experience would interfere in their jury deliberation, that's different.  They would have also been admonished not to discuss their experiences with other jurors if they were kept.  If they were asked that question and didn't respond, or stated it woudn't enter into their deliberations, that is contempt.  And perhaps the laws are different in your state but in mine, and again, I can only speak to however many trials I did, back to back, year in and year out, in no way is a juror allowed to base their verdict on the experince of another juror.  Unless of course they were never asked those questions nor instructed not to discuss it.

This was quite the scolding from somebody who doesn't know me when I was stating my position just as you and many others did.  But in fact I do have over 40 years worth of listening to voir dire and every single word of the jury instructions ad nauseum...both when the judge states them and when I am then transcribiing them into a transcript.  

Next time maybe a simple I don't agree with you and that wasn't my experinece would have worked.  

[Wsmom]

@hckynutjohn , Here's one of those instructions for you:

"You should use your common sense and experience in deciding whether

testimony is true and accurate. However, during your deliberations, do

not make any statements or provide any information to other jurors

based on any special training or unique personal experiences that you

may have had related to matters involved in this case. What you may

know or have learned through your training or experience is not a part

of the evidence received in this case."

That type of instruction may not have been given and may not have been given in any trial you were a juror in; where I worked that was a standard instruction for every trial.

[Mindy D]

@Wsmom @I find this set of instructions confusing. The first sentence seems to conflict with the second and third sentences. It is the use of the words experience and experiences that are confusing me. 

---

@Wsmom wrote:

@hckynutjohn , Here's one of those instructions for you:

"You should use your common sense and experience in deciding whether

testimony is true and accurate. However, during your deliberations, do

not make any statements or provide any information to other jurors

based on any special training or unique personal experiences that you

may have had related to matters involved in this case. What you may

know or have learned through your training or experience is not a part

of the evidence received in this case."

That type of instruction may not have been given and may not have been given in any trial you were a juror in; where I worked that was a standard instruction for every trial.

---

[Isobel Archer]

---

@Mindy D wrote:

@Wsmom @I find this set of instructions confusing. The first sentence seems to conflict with the second and third sentences. It is the use of the words experience and experiences that are confusing me. 

---

@Wsmom wrote:

@hckynutjohn , Here's one of those instructions for you:

"You should use your common sense and experience in deciding whether

testimony is true and accurate. However, during your deliberations, do

not make any statements or provide any information to other jurors

based on any special training or unique personal experiences that you

may have had related to matters involved in this case. What you may

know or have learned through your training or experience is not a part

of the evidence received in this case."

That type of instruction may not have been given and may not have been given in any trial you were a juror in; where I worked that was a standard instruction for every trial.

---

---

 OK - how about this?  Statements based on unique personal experiences.

A juror says - I don't know why someone would wait to report sex abuse.  You chime in - well when I was abused, I didn't want to say anything because.....

That is NOT evidence.  You don't know why someone else didn't report it.  For all you know it was consensual or never happened and now they are lying. 

.  

Additionally, your experience colors your judgment.  That's why the question was on the form in the first place.

[Porcelain]

I think it's bizarre to try to keep a child sexual assault victim from sitting on a jury. That person would have a useful perspective on this case. Having been groomed and/or attacked themselves, they could pinpoint the key incidents and their meanings.

It would make more sense to eject most jury members who had no knowledge of child sexual assault. They would be less likely to believe it was possible for a respectable-appearing person to do such a thing in secret, since they had never experienced it or heard much about it themselves.

Or have both groups of people on juries. That makes the most sense.