4 ms·

As a juror, I can base my judgement on my own analysis of what is before me, I don't have to rely on what they tell me it means. I can consider the MRDA rule[1]

As a juror, I can base my judgement on my own analysis of what is before me, I don't have to rely on what they tell me it means. I can consider the MRDA rule[1] when something seems too convenient for the person saying it. I can consider whether or not that oddly-timed eye blinking is a tell. I would be able to form these opinions privately during the testimony and then share these opinions with my fellow jurors during deliberation. Based on instructions I received as a juror, I think it would be inbounds to send in a factual question to the judge, and maybe that question would lead to additional evidence that could be presented and also balanced with rebuttal or otherwise handled fairly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRDA_(slang) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRDA_(slang)

rdtsc 9y ago
Sure nothing I said disagrees with what you mentioned. Yes you can make you own opinion, draw from your experience, consider whatever evidence you choose and deliberate with your fellow jurors. What the judge instructs jurors is that they shouldn't research related information or talk about the case during lunch or if they go home and have to come back and so on. So in this case you might hear the defense "experts" talk about "delirium" and presenting it as peer reviewed, settled science. A juror would want open up Wikipedia page on it and read about and find that it's mostly bullshit. But they are instructed not to. Now maybe the plaintiff's attorney is good enough to call their experts and testify against the other expert. Or maybe you already know or is familiar with these topics. No problem there then, but you might be struck out initially by the defense if they say "is anyone familiar or an expert in X" as a preventive measure to bolster their chances of winning. Now here is something interesting to think about - maybe there is a way to find out a-priori about all the cases on the docket for that day you are called and research and learn as much as possible about them. For busy court house that could end being a lot of cases.

rdtsc 9y ago

Sure nothing I said disagrees with what you mentioned. Yes you can make you own opinion, draw from your experience, consider whatever evidence you choose and deliberate with your fellow jurors. What the judge instructs jurors is that they shouldn't research related information or talk about the case during lunch or if they go home and have to come back and so on. So in this case you might hear the defense "experts" talk about "delirium" and presenting it as peer reviewed, settled science. A juror would want open up Wikipedia page on it and read about and find that it's mostly bullshit. But they are instructed not to. Now maybe the plaintiff's attorney is good enough to call their experts and testify against the other expert. Or maybe you already know or is familiar with these topics. No problem there then, but you might be struck out initially by the defense if they say "is anyone familiar or an expert in X" as a preventive measure to bolster their chances of winning. Now here is something interesting to think about - maybe there is a way to find out a-priori about all the cases on the docket for that day you are called and research and learn as much as possible about them. For busy court house that could end being a lot of cases.