A question about jurors.

[wasapi]

"The jury will disregard that statement."

Well, it reminds me of the saying; Now I will never be able to 'un-see' that.

Any thoughts? Do you believe jurors really disregard?

 

[gabeygoat]

I think if I was in a jury, I'd really really try, but I don't see it being possible. That said, it would be reasonable to not bring it up during deliberations.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Some might disregard, some might not. It’s the nature of juries to sort it out between themselves.

 

[marting]

I spend almost two months on a Mexican Mafia trial. Lot's of testimony to review and go though all the charge elements. Was impressed with the way jurors worked together. Each of us would recall different elements from the trial which we would discuss and refer to the exhibits we were provided. I don't recall any discussion about things the judge struck.

I left with a high regard for jury trials. In particular the need to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[TragicMonkey]

"The jury will disregard that statement."

Well, it reminds me of the saying; Now I will never be able to 'un-see' that.

Any thoughts? Do you believe jurors really disregard?

Yes. When I was a juror we were instructed to not consider several things that were said both in the witness box and as outbursts in the courtroom. The jury was taken out of the room immediately when these occurred so the judge and lawyers could discuss things. When we came back, I don't remember if the judge worded it exactly as "disregard" but the instructions were very clear that in deciding guilt or innocence we were not to base our decision on any of those particular things that were said. We did as we were told and reached our decision based on everything else.

After the trial when I could read the news again I found out what it was about: the prosecution and defense had made a deal where prosecution wouldn't introduce evidence X if the defense didn't introduce evidence Y. The remarks to be disregarded were those that involved Y and therefore might have broken the deal. The arguments in our absence were deciding whether the deal had been broken enough to need a new trial or if it were sufficiently intact to proceed.

It felt weird finding out we hadn't been given the whole story, but on reflection it was for the best-- the deal really was a good one, it favored the defense but it wasn't enough of an advantage to overcome some other problems. Like the defendant taking the stand against his lawyer's advice and literally admitting he did the crime, that's not easily recovered from when pleading not guilty. Neither X nor Y, had we known them, would have changed that.

 

[Puppycow]

I spend almost two months on a Mexican Mafia trial. Lot's of testimony to review and go though all the charge elements. Was impressed with the way jurors worked together. Each of us would recall different elements from the trial which we would discuss and refer to the exhibits we were provided. I don't recall any discussion about things the judge struck.

I left with a high regard for jury trials. In particular the need to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes. When I was a juror we were instructed to not consider several things that were said both in the witness box and as outbursts in the courtroom. The jury was taken out of the room immediately when these occurred so the judge and lawyers could discuss things. When we came back, I don't remember if the judge worded it exactly as "disregard" but the instructions were very clear that in deciding guilt or innocence we were not to base our decision on any of those particular things that were said. We did as we were told and reached our decision based on everything else.

After the trial when I could read the news again I found out what it was about: the prosecution and defense had made a deal where prosecution wouldn't introduce evidence X if the defense didn't introduce evidence Y. The remarks to be disregarded were those that involved Y and therefore might have broken the deal. The arguments in our absence were deciding whether the deal had been broken enough to need a new trial or if it were sufficiently intact to proceed.

It felt weird finding out we hadn't been given the whole story, but on reflection it was for the best-- the deal really was a good one, it favored the defense but it wasn't enough of an advantage to overcome some other problems. Like the defendant taking the stand against his lawyer's advice and literally admitting he did the crime, that's not easily recovered from when pleading not guilty. Neither X nor Y, had we known them, would have changed that.

I too was once on a jury. A much simpler case. Basically a drunk driving case. The defense even stipulated to that part. The question was, did it also amount to vehicular assault, a more serious crime. In my case too, the defendant took the stand and essentially admitted to the crime. He took the stand to say that he had a family and was otherwise a good person, but that isn't really what the trial was about. His drunk driving resulted in an innocent person being seriously injured. It doesn't matter that he's a family man who is just struggling to make a living and provide for his family and all that.

Maybe ultimately it helped him in the sentencing phase, but in my trial the jury only had to determine guilt or innocence. It wasn't up to us to decide a sentence. That part fell to the judge.

 

[Elaedith]

"The jury will disregard that statement."

Well, it reminds me of the saying; Now I will never be able to 'un-see' that.

Any thoughts? Do you believe jurors really disregard?

People can sincerely intend to disregard evidence and jurors can choose to refrain from discussing it during deliberation, but we can't simply decide not to have information influence our decisions. We we are not consciously aware of all factors biasing our decisions. This really gets to the basis of scientific scepticism, because if we could simply choose to disregard irrelevant information and not let it influence us, we would have no need for many standard scientific methods such as blinding (except to prevent intentional fraud).

It's trivially easy to show experimentally that mock jurors are influenced by evidence they think they have disregarded. Simply randomly allocate mock jurors to at least three experimental conditions, give them trial transcripts to read, and tell one group to disregard some information in reaching a decision. Decisions in this disregard group tend to me more in line with a comparison group that is not told to disregard, compared to a group that never sees the information (although the reason for being told to disregard can affect this). This happens even when people sincerely believe they have complied with instructions.

Although the methodology in these studies is often not great, the findings are in line with what we know about cognitive bias. For people to be able to choose not to be influenced by information they know, most of what we know about cognitive bias would have to be wrong.

Here is an example of a meta-analysis on the issue.

 

[theprestige]

"The jury will disregard that statement."

Well, it reminds me of the saying; Now I will never be able to 'un-see' that.

Any thoughts? Do you believe jurors really disregard?

It's probably easier than you think. You're not trying to carry on a relationship with this person, full of shades of gray, and now darkened by this knowledge you can't pretend not to know.

You're trying to reach a well-defined binary conclusion based on a specific set of facts. You know which facts you're relying on to reach one conclusion over the other. You know which facts you're not supposed to rely on. You can reason you way through various hypotheticals: One with the errant fact, one without the errant fact.

You also have to be able to explain it to your fellow jurors.

"I say he's guilty."

"Why?"

"Because he admitted it on the stand."

"We were told to disregard that."

"Yes, I know."

"And without that, I don't see how we have enough facts to conclude he's guilty."

"Neither do I."

And there it is.

It's not some wishy-washy social awkwardness, where you're supposed to pretend you like your friend's husband, even though you know for a fact what a jerk he is, and you just can't help treating him coldly.

You can always help how you reason through facts, and arrive at different hypothetical conclusions based on different fact sets.

 

[wasapi]

I was on a jury. A young man was accused of armed robbery. He was supported by his grandmother, and the love was mutual. He started crying while he was talking about how he loved her and was concerned about her being disappointed in him. We were instructed to disregard, because it was just to gain sympathy.

It was obvious that he was guilty and we found him guilty. But it was difficult to entirely disregard and we felt sympathy for him. I'll never forget leaving the courtroom and feeling I had just been a part of 'am I my brothers keeper'.

It is a relief I am not going to have jury duty because of my disability. But even before it just never felt right.

 

[marting]

I did not want to be on a month's long trial. So during voir dire I raised my hand and asked a question hoping it would get me tossed.

"If you are driving and agreed with your passenger to exceed the speed limit could you be charged with conspiracy (a felony) since any agreement between two or more people to violate a law constitutes conspiracy?"

The prosecutor responded with "we're talking about murder, not speeding." It didn't get me tossed.

I asked this because something similar actually happened and I'd always been curious. Decades previously, I read in the paper about some Klan people who decided to burn a cross. It was burned in the front yard at one of the Klan people's homes. This violated fire code laws since they didn't have a permit. Several were arrested and charged with felony conspiracy to violate the fire code.

Kind of applying a law because the people were just so disgusting.

 

[theprestige]

I was on a jury. A young man was accused of armed robbery. He was supported by his grandmother, and the love was mutual. He started crying while he was talking about how he loved her and was concerned about her being disappointed in him. We were instructed to disregard, because it was just to gain sympathy.

It was obvious that he was guilty and we found him guilty. But it was difficult to entirely disregard and we felt sympathy for him. I'll never forget leaving the courtroom and feeling I had just been a part of 'am I my brothers keeper'.

It is a relief I am not going to have jury duty because of my disability. But even before it just never felt right.

It sounds like the answer to your question was inside you all along. You had direct personal experience of how it works, and how juries are able to separate their emotional responses from their sober assessment of the facts. And yet you still started this thread anyway.

 

[PitPat]

I was on a jury. A young man was accused of armed robbery. He was supported by his grandmother, and the love was mutual. He started crying while he was talking about how he loved her and was concerned about her being disappointed in him. We were instructed to disregard, because it was just to gain sympathy.

It was obvious that he was guilty and we found him guilty. But it was difficult to entirely disregard and we felt sympathy for him. I'll never forget leaving the courtroom and feeling I had just been a part of 'am I my brothers keeper'.

It is a relief I am not going to have jury duty because of my disability. But even before it just never felt right.

This is kind of the most important question about jury trials. I've always been fascinated by that. No, you can not unring that bell. It's up to the judge if there was something prejudiced if something would said that could be prejudicial especially if it was already ruled out for admission.

Not an easy job. Nobody wants a hung jury, but we're dealing with real life people who hold strong views and did not kicked out in voir dire.

There was one, and I don't remember the exact case, that the jury came back with a verdict. Turned out even though they had the instructions, it needed to unanimous. One said Not Guilty.

So sent them back in to the deliberation room, and awhile later they came back out and said "guilty". Then when asked for a juror poll, one said "not guilty" or not sure or something. Sounded like all of them were confused about what unanimous meant.

Once a jury hears something that they're not supposed to (according to pretrial motions and such), you can't unring that bell.

 

[lionking]

I guess it depends on the trial. Jurors involved in a highly complicated one with a lot of technical detail and law interpretation have enough trouble taking everything into account, and would likely welcome an invitation to disregard.

 

[theprestige]

This is kind of the most important question about jury trials. I've always been fascinated by that. No, you can not unring that bell. It's up to the judge if there was something prejudiced if something would said that could be prejudicial especially if it was already ruled out for admission.

Not an easy job. Nobody wants a hung jury, but we're dealing with real life people who hold strong views and did not kicked out in voir dire.

There was one, and I don't remember the exact case, that the jury came back with a verdict. Turned out even though they had the instructions, it needed to unanimous. One said Not Guilty.

So sent them back in to the deliberation room, and awhile later they came back out and said "guilty". Then when asked for a juror poll, one said "not guilty" or not sure or something. Sounded like all of them were confused about what unanimous meant.

Once a jury hears something that they're not supposed to (according to pretrial motions and such), you can't unring that bell.

Wasapi just told you about a time that she literally unrang that bell. Are you telling her she can't have done what she says she did?

 

[PitPat]

I've been on a homicide and attempted homicide jury too. Juror #1 actually.

What are the facts involved in either one of these cases and the presentation of evidence.

I'm mostly talking generally, it wasn't very difficult. And by not difficult I mean that his testimony did not even come close to matching up with the evidence.

He's probably out by now.

His accomplice, who pleaded guilty, testified for the state. Very reluctantly.

 

[dudalb]

I think if I was in a jury, I'd really really try, but I don't see it being possible. That said, it would be reasonable to not bring it up during deliberations.

My Sister who is an attorney says among themsleves Lawyers pretty much laugh at the "disregard that statment" routine. Jurors cannot forget something once they have heard it.

 

[theprestige]

My Sister who is an attorney says among themsleves Lawyers pretty much laugh at the "disregard that statment" routine. Jurors cannot forget something once they have heard it.

Disregarding is not the same as forgetting. The judge is not directing the jurors to manifest the memory of a goldfish. The judge is directing the jurors to make a conscious, rational decision about which evidence they will consider when reaching a verdict.

I think that's a more reasonable and feasible direction than some people imagine. Wasapi even says she's done it herself.

 

[wasapi]

Disregarding is not the same as forgetting. The judge is not directing the jurors to manifest the memory of a goldfish. The judge is directing the jurors to make a conscious, rational decision about which evidence they will consider when reaching a verdict.

I think that's a more reasonable and feasible direction than some people imagine. Wasapi even says she's done it herself.

Thanks. You explained it better then I.