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.
First the direct answer: you can’t.
Some more context: there’s usually ways to deal with this issue. There’s voir dire for example, where you can do a practice run of the questions and answers for a specific witness, or the party can profer (idk if it’s spelled correctly) the testimony, giving the judge a general idea of the direct or cross-examination.
This usually only happens if something goes wrong. It can be things like the lawyer overstepping a boundary by accident, but it’s very frowned upon and they can be admonished and sanctioned by the judge.
For why to do about the “can’t put the shit back in the horse”, usually the judge gives the jury an admonishment and maybe even a curative instruction right before deliberation, but best case scenario it’s been handled in advance and doesn’t even happen.
Basically the idea is to keep the jury “as clean as possible in their decision”. Best case they only hear the stuff that’s relevant, but any other case you try to tell them to disregard things or remind them what to consider, and you hope they feel duty-bound to uphold this.
Generally it is understood that juries take their obligation extremely seriously and most of the time they genuinely make an effort to rule out evidence that shouldn’t have come in. Of course there are outliers.
When I was on the hiring team at work, I googled an applicant and discovered that they were arrested in the 90s for filming themself having sex with a cow. That is increadibly offputting but they had a clean record in the 30 years since then and even if they didn’t it was in no way applicable to the job in question so I simply disregarded that fact. Obviously I still knew they fucked a cow but I simply didn’t consiously factor it into the hiring decision. They did get the job btw.
I imagine it is the same for a jury. Obviously the jury can’t literally forget something that was said but they can consiously choose to disregard it when it comes to their final decision. Obviously it’s not perfect because any information admissable or otherwise will subconsciously influence someones verdict but if they try to actively ignore that info then it is better than nothing.
As long as you don’t work with cows it shouldn’t matter, Now if it a job on a dairy farm…
If a jury of my peers finds me guilty of any crime, no matter how obvious it is that I did it, and I then find out they’re all a bunch of cow fuckers, I will be filing for an appeal.
I’m sorry if I missed the point of this story, it was a long day for me.
Gotta admire the dedication of producing homemade beastiality porn in the 60s with a camera that must’ve weighed a ton. Hired!
That’s not admirable…
Did they know you knew they fucked a cow? I hope you used that as leverage in every confrontation with them.
Its more that when deliberating the jurors just consciously disregard that info. However, everyone knows that this is a request at best. What jurors do or do not consider when they are deliberating will vary.
If they openly talk about something they were told not to talk about, could that have any repercussions?
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?
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
Keep in mind that statement is not allowed for a reason. Eg. One time a prosecutor implied that the defendant was in a gang because they were wearing a shirt with the color red. He wasn’t in a gang. If he was, the prosecutor would’ve had actual evidence. It’s literally just a manipulation tactic to try to get a conviction, and that’s why it was objected to.
It could also, however, be legitimate evidence that proves guilt, but that was obtained through illegal means and therefore is inadmissible in court.
Username checks out.
If it was a jury of my peers no one would remember much in the first place.
For real, even short jury trials are typically a couple of days long, and there will typically be tens, if not hundreds, of things objected to during the course of the trial.
You would have to have a very good memory to remember a specific objection out of the pile.
This is precisely why I detest being a juror. There’s always one juror questioning my memory. Consequently, I follow by repeating the last five minutes of the conversation to prove it. Subsequently, someone acts like it’s a gift, but it’s akin to living in my own personal hell. Having to recall almost everything for decades. It’s almost impossible to ever let things go.
You’ve been watching too much TV.
I work in the legal field right now. I’ve sat in and participated in approximately 50 trials in the last five years.
Oh no! Are you going to regulate me?
They don’t. But later in deliberations they cannot see it in a transcript. They are supposed to base everything on the evidence they have.
So, if something is said that absolutely incriminates a person, but it’s thrown out on a technicality and little evidence remains… technically they should be not guilty.
Conversely, if someone is being railroaded for a crime and the only evidence placing them half way across the world at the time is somehow thrown out…. They’d have to find them guilty.
Could you? I could not.
They’d be supposed to, but they certainly don’t have to. Nobody can actually tell the jury what to decide, or there’d be no point in a jury
They have to. I mean legally they cannot consider that evidence. If they keep bringing it up in jury deliberations, and that gets reported, it would be a mistrial.
However, you’re right in that it cannot be erased from a person’s mind… the phrase I’ve heard used is “ringing the bell” which is when a lawyer might mention a persons prior convictions, but that gets objected to and stricken. But the bell rung and the jury knows.
No, there’s still a fundamental disconnect there.
The law may say they have to, but they don’t actually have to. The difference is important
If they don’t, and they say they aren’t, it is a mistrial.
If they don’t, and they keep their mouth shut, then no one knows.
Connected.
I was on a jury for a 3 week trial last winter. In almost every case the attorneys go to a side bar before anything is brought up. The only situation we had where we were asked to ignore something were two incomplete questions regarding a business relationship that later turned out to be completely inconsequential to the questions at hand.
As individuals, they can’t. But as a group making a decision through verbal discussion, they can exclude the information from the deliberative process. At least to their own satisfaction, they need to construct a justification for their verdict that doesn’t rely on the forbidden evidence.
It’s a manipulation tactic by either a judge or a shady lawyer to get the result they want. It’s an old trick that was used for centuries.
It’s not forgotten, that’s why lawyers engineer those moments.
But it’s supposed to be rationally disregarded.
Well it means that officially, they’re not supposed to consider it a factor in their decision making. But you’re right that it’s not really possible to completely erase the influence on their minds. Even if they try to completely disregard it, it will still have an impact on their thoughts
