During court, when something happens and the judge tells the jury to ‘forget that’ or ‘not include that,’ if the jury heard it, how could I, as someone on the jury, possibly just ignore what I heard? Whether the evidence is admissible or not.
During court, when something happens and the judge tells the jury to ‘forget that’ or ‘not include that,’ if the jury heard it, how could I, as someone on the jury, possibly just ignore what I heard? Whether the evidence is admissible or not.
Their discussions are usually confidential and between them. The lead jurist should remind people not to use that component when deliberating. Unless someone narcs to the judge, there’s no real mechanism to stop them from talking
What can then happen if someone narcs to the judge?
Just FYI, in statesia a juror has the right to cast their vote for whatever reason they deem. It can be as petty as not liking the defendant’s shoes. You can vote not guilty because you think the law is stupid or the charges were brought improperly (this is called jury nullification). Just, judges don’t like when you do that, so don’t tell when you’re doing jury nullification. Just vote.
Juries often have one or more alternates. Those are jurors who sit in the jury box for the entire trial, but under normal conditions they aren’t in the jury room during deliberations. If a juror is unable to remain, for whatever reason, then the judge replaces that juror with one of the alternates. I sat on 2 days of a 3 day trial but tested positive for Covid the morning of the third, so I was excused. The judge replaced me with one of her alternates.
If the judge got wind that a juror was disregarding such an order then that juror would likely be kicked out & replaced with an alternate. If the transgression by the juror was severe enough the judge could potentially also refer the juror to the Attorney Generals office for investigation and possible charges.
I would guess they declare a mistrial and have to start over with a new jury. This is one of the reasons justice is slow