Community Chat

[occasionalrain]

A person who has been sexualy abused cannot be objective because of it. They may distrust men and think all would behave as preditors if they thought they wouldn't be caught. 

[Porcelain]

---

@occasionalrain 

That's not so. Your words are unnecessarily insulting to those who have healed from sexual trauma.

We have all had to deal with the effects of various crimes in our lives. That does not make you or your family wildly irrational or unable to set aside your personal biases.

[Wsmom]

---

@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.

---

---

@Mindy D , many times jurors don't understand what an instruction means; they can often be confusing.  They then send out a note for an explanation.

This means you can use your own common sense and experience when deliberating but you can't share your experiences and tell the other jurors what your experiences are.  That was not evidence of what happened in this trial.  If the jury needed to know why someone may not be able to recollect somethiing they bring in an expert witness for that; another juror is not the expert witness.  When you deliberate and talk about the case, you talk only about the evidence presented in the courtroom, not each juror's individual life experience on that subject.  It is the attorneys' jobs to present all evidence they feel is necessary and not for the jurors to plug holes with their own past jobs, friends' jobs, or past experiences.

Did that make sense or is it more confusing now.

Example:  Some testimony was not presented and based on that I can't find someone guilty.  So and so says well, let me tell you my experience.  Well now the person who was holding out says, ok then....guilty.

Yikes.  Somebody has now been found guilty not based on anything having to do with their case, but because of some juror's experiences.

[Duckncover]

I have been called to jury duty many times and was always surprised to see the people who showed up. More than one time they would ask us as a group if you had any felonies on your record to please stand! Half the room would stand up....it was rare that I ever saw enough people who would ever be considered a jury of my peers..unless "peer" only means human...

[Isobel Archer]

Trials have to be decided on the evidence presented.

Actually, when I was a 3rd party judging administrative disputes, that applied as well.

Even if I KNEW someone was lying -  if no evidence was presented to refute it, I couldn't decide against them just based on my knowledge.  I was limited to the evidence in the record.

[hckynutjohn]

---

@Wsmom wrote:

@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 

Sorry, "a simple I disagree isn't how I roll". I could break down some of your comments here, but it would not change what I experienced on the 9 Jury Panels on which I sat.

Using your "simple" last sentence? You could have done likewise, no? 

hckynut🥅🏒

---

[hckynutjohn]

---

@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.

@Wsmom 

Not sure these were the same instructions we were given on the juries on which I sat. Your font is too small for this old man's eyes to read, on going back an forth stretching to reply to this, effects my eye focus.

What I can say is this. On 1 specific trial I sat, a Civil Trial, had it not been for my background and knowledge of internal combustion engines, along with knowledge of a few trade skills in construction? Those on this panel would not have understood the basis of this trial.

Example: You had new brakes installed on your car and had a National brake company install your new brakes.Your brakes fail and you total your car.

Would you blame the manufacturer like GM for the failure? Or would you be more likely to blame the National brake company that installed your new brakes?

On the panel on which I sat, most on the panel wanted to place blame on the last person that checked this machine and motor.

The fault did not lie with him because the person(company) that constructed the overall protection package, was negligent. This company did not put in the necessary protections, which were specifically needed, to prevent the exact  tragedy that happened.

Were it not for my machine/construction, and internal combustion engine knowledge, the outcome and verdict of this case would have been the opposite, and wrong.

Some of the jurors not understanding that in construction, you do not blame a brick layer, if an electrical fire burns down the building before its Grand Opening. What happened had nothing to do with the masonry construction of this project.

And I am supposed to sit there and say nothing about the false evidence provided by the Defense in this trial?  I wouldn't care what the instructions said.

They were written wrong if they excluded me talking, during deliberations to the other jurors, from my knowledge and background with internal combustion engines, and in general construction of large buildings.

Is this the same as this Maxwell case? Of course not, but!  Will leave it at that.

hckynut🏒

[mom2four0418]

---

@occasionalrain wrote:

A person who has been sexualy abused cannot be objective because of it. They may distrust men and think all would behave as preditors if they thought they wouldn't be caught. 

---

I presume that you are speaking from your own experience?

[occasionalrain]

---

@mom2four0418 wrote:

---

@occasionalrain wrote:

A person who has been sexualy abused cannot be objective because of it. They may distrust men and think all would behave as preditors if they thought they wouldn't be caught. 

---

I presume that you are speaking from your own experience?

---

No. I minored in psychology and had classes in Human Sexuality. No matter, a person who has been a victim of the offense of which the defendant is accused can't serve on the jury.

[Mindy D]

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@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.

---

@Isobel Archer @This was an example of a set of jury instructions from Wsmom that worked as a court reporter. I have seen and heard other jury instructions, but even with your explanation and example, this set still is unclear to me.