Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,177
for the sake of argument
From a previously supplied link, "Lawyers also ask questions meant to discover specialized knowledge that could cause a juror to rely on outside evidence. For example, imagine a case involving arson. Veteran firefighters may not make good jurors because they are likely refer to their own professional experience during deliberations, contrary to the rules requiring them to decide the case solely based on the evidence admitted at trial and the legal instructions given by the judge. Courts usually excuse potential jurors with backgrounds that could cause them to draw on their own training and experience during deliberations." My interpretation of this paragraph is that one wants jurors to decide on the basis of what is presented at the trial, not on the basis of what is not.
Juror 11 is writing a book and has reviewed a book. From The Observer: "Cheronis argued that this was in violation of the court order not to consume media related to the trial, and sought to have her replaced on the jury."
For the sake of argument, let us assume that juror 11 had been entirely truthful. These two facts still create a reasonable suspicion that juror 11 would bring outside information or strongly held personal views into her deliberations. On the basis that dismissing an acceptable juror is less serious than accepting a problematic one, she should have been let go, as my previous message also indicated. I do not yet have a strong opinion on whether or not her reviewing was in violation of the court order.
From a previously supplied link, "Lawyers also ask questions meant to discover specialized knowledge that could cause a juror to rely on outside evidence. For example, imagine a case involving arson. Veteran firefighters may not make good jurors because they are likely refer to their own professional experience during deliberations, contrary to the rules requiring them to decide the case solely based on the evidence admitted at trial and the legal instructions given by the judge. Courts usually excuse potential jurors with backgrounds that could cause them to draw on their own training and experience during deliberations." My interpretation of this paragraph is that one wants jurors to decide on the basis of what is presented at the trial, not on the basis of what is not.
Juror 11 is writing a book and has reviewed a book. From The Observer: "Cheronis argued that this was in violation of the court order not to consume media related to the trial, and sought to have her replaced on the jury."
For the sake of argument, let us assume that juror 11 had been entirely truthful. These two facts still create a reasonable suspicion that juror 11 would bring outside information or strongly held personal views into her deliberations. On the basis that dismissing an acceptable juror is less serious than accepting a problematic one, she should have been let go, as my previous message also indicated. I do not yet have a strong opinion on whether or not her reviewing was in violation of the court order.
Last edited: