4 ms·

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

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.
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      It is my understanding that juries are empowered to do pretty much anything they please. I'd guess in your case that the judge was operating under a technicality of the language (per usual), he may personally not be able to give you any written thing except for the rules agreed to. However, the jury should be able to request that the actual statutes be delivered to it. If words are not defined in that statute, then the jury can request that the appropriate definitions be delivered to it.
- wj 12y ago
  Same thing happened to me on a jury I was on. We found an error in the jury instructions and had to be issued new ones.
fixermark 12y ago
Having sat on one case: More difficult than one might anticipate.
rosser 12y ago
It's even more fun when people downvote objective, verifiable facts with which they apparently disagree. I will never stop shaking my head in sadness at seeing that happen.
nazgul 12y ago
I was on a jury once. Many, many people can't follow simple jury instructions, figure out the difference between an argument and a statute (seriously), etc. And most of them had an education level beyond college. It was the most eye opening experience of my life.
- PhantomGremlin 12y ago
  Yeah, the jury system is scary. It's also better than any other alternative that anyone else has come up with so far. Much the same criticism can be applied to representative democracy in general. It sucks but it beats, e.g., the plutocratic cult-of-personality that Russia currently has. And what about Somalia? Rule by warlord? FWIW my jury experience differs from yours. I have been on a number of juries in my life and I wound up with a relatively good opinion of most of my fellow jurors. There was only one juror (out of IIRC about six juries) that, it was immediately obvious, was very close minded and basically unclear as to her civic responsibility. But most of my experience is 15 or 30 years old. Perhaps jurors have gotten dumber since then?
raldi 12y ago
> HN's obsession with downmodding legitimate questions "What does it say about the jury?" is not a legitimate question; it's a patently loaded rhetorical question. Or really, an insinuation disguised as a question. "What does it say that X?" is code for "X is a red flag." If you want to make an accusation, come out and make one.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  That's, just like, your perception, guy. Do you start with the presupposition that juries are infallible? Surely their actions must leak information about their constitution? If a jury cannot follow (what is assumed to be) basic rules, then how can one be assured that they capably analyzed the facts and case issued to them and then appropriately applied matters of the law (written rules) to them? Edit: Since you edited after my response: I am not making any accusations. Strange that you assume so. I just don't know enough information about the specifics to make any judgments. That's why I asked the question(s) in the first place.
  - raldi 12y ago
    A jury of one's peers is, by definition, imperfect. However, after studying millennia of history, we as a people have decided that this is still the least bad model yet invented.
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      This is completely dodging the (hard?) questions and deflecting to historical actors. Also, I didn't decide anything (and I doubt you did either). This is the system I was born into and it as been operating without my input.
      - raldi 12y ago
        What questions did you have in mind? P.S. Note that I'm not asserting that the current system is perfect. Just that we (again, as a society; not me and you specifically) decided long ago that the drawbacks of letting 12 schlubs decide a person's fate were exceeded by the drawbacks of letting only the well-educated do so.

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.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    It is my understanding that juries are empowered to do pretty much anything they please. I'd guess in your case that the judge was operating under a technicality of the language (per usual), he may personally not be able to give you any written thing except for the rules agreed to. However, the jury should be able to request that the actual statutes be delivered to it. If words are not defined in that statute, then the jury can request that the appropriate definitions be delivered to it.
wj 12y ago
Same thing happened to me on a jury I was on. We found an error in the jury instructions and had to be issued new ones.

fixermark 12y ago

Having sat on one case: More difficult than one might anticipate.

rosser 12y ago

It's even more fun when people downvote objective, verifiable facts with which they apparently disagree. I will never stop shaking my head in sadness at seeing that happen.

nazgul 12y ago

I was on a jury once. Many, many people can't follow simple jury instructions, figure out the difference between an argument and a statute (seriously), etc. And most of them had an education level beyond college. It was the most eye opening experience of my life.

PhantomGremlin 12y ago
Yeah, the jury system is scary. It's also better than any other alternative that anyone else has come up with so far. Much the same criticism can be applied to representative democracy in general. It sucks but it beats, e.g., the plutocratic cult-of-personality that Russia currently has. And what about Somalia? Rule by warlord? FWIW my jury experience differs from yours. I have been on a number of juries in my life and I wound up with a relatively good opinion of most of my fellow jurors. There was only one juror (out of IIRC about six juries) that, it was immediately obvious, was very close minded and basically unclear as to her civic responsibility. But most of my experience is 15 or 30 years old. Perhaps jurors have gotten dumber since then?

raldi 12y ago

> HN's obsession with downmodding legitimate questions "What does it say about the jury?" is not a legitimate question; it's a patently loaded rhetorical question. Or really, an insinuation disguised as a question. "What does it say that X?" is code for "X is a red flag." If you want to make an accusation, come out and make one.

jsprogrammer 12y ago
That's, just like, your perception, guy. Do you start with the presupposition that juries are infallible? Surely their actions must leak information about their constitution? If a jury cannot follow (what is assumed to be) basic rules, then how can one be assured that they capably analyzed the facts and case issued to them and then appropriately applied matters of the law (written rules) to them? Edit: Since you edited after my response: I am not making any accusations. Strange that you assume so. I just don't know enough information about the specifics to make any judgments. That's why I asked the question(s) in the first place.
- raldi 12y ago
  A jury of one's peers is, by definition, imperfect. However, after studying millennia of history, we as a people have decided that this is still the least bad model yet invented.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    This is completely dodging the (hard?) questions and deflecting to historical actors. Also, I didn't decide anything (and I doubt you did either). This is the system I was born into and it as been operating without my input.
    - raldi 12y ago
      What questions did you have in mind? P.S. Note that I'm not asserting that the current system is perfect. Just that we (again, as a society; not me and you specifically) decided long ago that the drawbacks of letting 12 schlubs decide a person's fate were exceeded by the drawbacks of letting only the well-educated do so.