5 ms·

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if this is a common action by judges, or something out of the ordinary?

by mirashii 12y ago

us0r 12y ago
Not sure on this but a few parts of this case are out of the ordinary like the jury asking questions during the case.
- ketralnis 12y ago
  I sat on a California civil jury last year, and we were able to ask witnesses questions. They were heavily filtered and reworded by the judge and attorneys, and asked by the judge. I think it strongly affected the outcome in my case.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Not sure on this but a few parts of this case are out of the ordinary like the jury asking questions during the case. AFAIK, jurors asking questions (or, at least, proposing questions which are reviewed by the counsel and actually asked by the judge) is not out of the ordinary anymore in trial courts in California. Certainly the criminal case I served on a jury for included that. Most of the sources I can find on it are somewhat old (around 2000) and indicate that it was then not legally mandated to be allowed, and that a minority of judges did it but it was growing in popularity (they also indicate that even then, it was mandated in some states that jurors be permitted to submit questions.) It may still not be a majority practice, but I've seen it frequently referenced in news reports of cases, so I don't think its particularly unusual anymore.
smackfu 12y ago
If the jury doesn't understand the rules properly, it's pretty common for the judge to send them back to figure it out.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  How difficult is it to understand the rules and what does it say about the jury if they don't? Edit: I really don't understand HN's obsession with downmodding legitimate questions. Either provide an answer or move on.
  - epistasis 12y ago
    The rules may be poorly communicated to the jury. On the one jury that I was on, they were perhaps cryptic, and by the time I figured them out I found an error in the way that we were supposed to address all the counts that we were considering. Such clerical errors are a part of any sort of human process. It's not the end of the world as long as there are processes in place to correct the errors.
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      That's what I'm asking. How often does it happen? What makes the rules so difficult to understand? Do most juries understand and this is just a poor jury? Can we look at the rules in this case? Or do we just have to go off NYT reporting and uninformed HN spectator speculation? You'd assume a centuries old institution (jury trial) would have worked through what seems like a very basic problem: how do you communicate to the jury (which is the ultimate object of the trial) what exactly they are supposed to do? How can you judge whether a jury is incompetent (or the judge and/or the lawyer(s))?
      - cowsandmilk 12y ago
        (a) one case I sat on in Massachusetts, the statute was written very obtusely and the judge said she was not allowed to give us the statute in writing. The jury literally went back in 3 or 4 times to ask for the instructions and statute to be read again. There was the statute, which then referred to other places for definitions of 4 or 5 terms, which also had to be read. Keeping a statute and the definitions in your head is not simple. Lawyers don't make their arguments in the absence of being able to reread the written law. Appeals courts can read the law when making judgments. But for some reason, as a jury, we were expected to keep it all in our head.
rayiner 12y ago
California Superior Court requires a 3/4 majority in civil jury trials. All states require a supermajority in civil cases, and federal courts and about half of state courts require unanimous verdicts.
- 300bps 12y ago
  It is currently Kleiner 8, Pao 4. She needs 9 to get a judgment in her favor. One of the jurors that voted for Pao on all counts has to leave the jury on Monday if the trial is extended at which point they will be replaced with an alternate. Pao has no chance here.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if this is a common action by judges, or something out of the ordinary?

us0r 12y ago

Not sure on this but a few parts of this case are out of the ordinary like the jury asking questions during the case.

ketralnis 12y ago
I sat on a California civil jury last year, and we were able to ask witnesses questions. They were heavily filtered and reworded by the judge and attorneys, and asked by the judge. I think it strongly affected the outcome in my case.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Not sure on this but a few parts of this case are out of the ordinary like the jury asking questions during the case. AFAIK, jurors asking questions (or, at least, proposing questions which are reviewed by the counsel and actually asked by the judge) is not out of the ordinary anymore in trial courts in California. Certainly the criminal case I served on a jury for included that. Most of the sources I can find on it are somewhat old (around 2000) and indicate that it was then not legally mandated to be allowed, and that a minority of judges did it but it was growing in popularity (they also indicate that even then, it was mandated in some states that jurors be permitted to submit questions.) It may still not be a majority practice, but I've seen it frequently referenced in news reports of cases, so I don't think its particularly unusual anymore.

smackfu 12y ago

If the jury doesn't understand the rules properly, it's pretty common for the judge to send them back to figure it out.

jsprogrammer 12y ago
How difficult is it to understand the rules and what does it say about the jury if they don't? Edit: I really don't understand HN's obsession with downmodding legitimate questions. Either provide an answer or move on.
- epistasis 12y ago
  The rules may be poorly communicated to the jury. On the one jury that I was on, they were perhaps cryptic, and by the time I figured them out I found an error in the way that we were supposed to address all the counts that we were considering. Such clerical errors are a part of any sort of human process. It's not the end of the world as long as there are processes in place to correct the errors.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    That's what I'm asking. How often does it happen? What makes the rules so difficult to understand? Do most juries understand and this is just a poor jury? Can we look at the rules in this case? Or do we just have to go off NYT reporting and uninformed HN spectator speculation? You'd assume a centuries old institution (jury trial) would have worked through what seems like a very basic problem: how do you communicate to the jury (which is the ultimate object of the trial) what exactly they are supposed to do? How can you judge whether a jury is incompetent (or the judge and/or the lawyer(s))?
    - cowsandmilk 12y ago
      (a) one case I sat on in Massachusetts, the statute was written very obtusely and the judge said she was not allowed to give us the statute in writing. The jury literally went back in 3 or 4 times to ask for the instructions and statute to be read again. There was the statute, which then referred to other places for definitions of 4 or 5 terms, which also had to be read. Keeping a statute and the definitions in your head is not simple. Lawyers don't make their arguments in the absence of being able to reread the written law. Appeals courts can read the law when making judgments. But for some reason, as a jury, we were expected to keep it all in our head.

rayiner 12y ago

California Superior Court requires a 3/4 majority in civil jury trials. All states require a supermajority in civil cases, and federal courts and about half of state courts require unanimous verdicts.

300bps 12y ago
It is currently Kleiner 8, Pao 4. She needs 9 to get a judgment in her favor. One of the jurors that voted for Pao on all counts has to leave the jury on Monday if the trial is extended at which point they will be replaced with an alternate. Pao has no chance here.