4 ms·
Having been in a jury this debate format is a big problem. If one of the sides is not good at presenting their case, there is a problem. In one of my cases the
by rqtwteye 3y ago
Having been in a jury this debate format is a big problem. If one of the sides is not good at presenting their case, there is a problem. In one of my cases the prosecution had an expert witness that stated some totally wrong facts about visibility during sunset. Due to photography I know a lot about lighting conditions so if I hadn’t spoken up during deliberation the prosecution would have gotten away with a falsehood.
- pmarreck 3y ago> so if I hadn’t spoken up during deliberation You are not allowed to use your own expertise that is not presented in the trial to inform your decisions. That is by law. Or at least, it was in Massachusetts when I last served on a jury. Which brought me to actual tears, btw, because the eyewitness testimony was being weighed too heavily.
- vacuity 3y agoWhat is a better alternative?
- csours 3y agoHard to say. The French system is different, and may have better results in some cases. > In France, the Cour d’assises itself was inherited from the French Revolution. Since a law of 1941, it is a mixed jury system, meaning that lay citizens sit together with professional judges https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/828/ https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/828/
- tonyarkles 3y ago> In one of my cases the prosecution had an expert witness that stated some totally wrong facts about visibility during sunset. That kind of stuff makes me profoundly uncomfortable. Presumably, too, since the judge doesn't participate in the jury deliberations at all, the (un)credibility of said expert witness never saw the light of day. Did the accused's side raise that possibility during cross-examination at all?