|
What
are juror discussions of evidence during the trial?
What
are some possible procedures a courtroom can use if it allows juror
discussions of evidence during the trial?
Are
there any examples of states that allow juror discussion of evidence
during the trial?
What
are some advantages of juror discussions of evidence during the trial?
RESPONSES
What
are juror discussions of evidence during the trial?
Juror
discussions of evidence during the trial are discussions that take place
among the jury regarding the case while the trial is still going on.
Generally, this is allowed only in the jury room and only when
all of the jurors are present, and with the caution that they must keep
an open mind until they have heard all of the evidence, all instructions
on the law, and all arguments from counsel.
Top
What
are some possible procedures a courtroom can use if it allows juror
discussions of evidence during the trial?
A
courtroom may use any of the following procedures.
As part of the preliminary jury instructions, the judge may
instruct the jurors that they may discuss the evidence among themselves
in the jury room during breaks in the trial.
Jurors are cautioned, however, that they may not discuss the case
with any other person until after the verdict and should avoid forming
opinions about the outcome of the case until they have heard everything.
The judge reminds the jurors from time to time, as necessary, of
the importance of keeping an open mind on ultimate issues until jury
deliberations begin.
Additionally,
if violations of the court’s admissions and conditions occur, the
judge, with the aid of counsel, may take immediate corrective action
regarding individual jurors or the jury as a whole.
Top
Are
there any examples of states that allow juror discussions of evidence
during the trial?
Since
December 1995, jurors in trials of civil cases in
Arizona
have been instructed
that, subject to certain limitations, they may discuss the evidence in
the jury room as the trial proceeds.
Some other states are considering adopting this technique.
With the exception of a handful of judges across the country
using the procedure on an experimental basis, judges generally continue
to instruct in accordance with the traditional admonition.
However,
much is not known about how widespread this practice is.
The National Center for State Courts is currently undergoing the
National Program to Increase Citizen Participation in Jury Service
through Jury Innovations, which hopes to catalogue the “State of the
States” when it comes to what innovations are being used across the
country. For more
information, contact Chris Connelly at cconnelly@ncsc.dni.us.
Top
What
are the advantages of juror discussions of evidence during the trial?
Some
advantages include:
- Juror
discussions about the evidence can improve juror comprehension by
permitting jurors to sift through and mentally organize the evidence
into a coherent picture over the course of the trial;
- Juror
discussions about the evidence may improve juror recollection of
evidence and testimony by emphasizing and clarifying important
points during the course of the trial;
- Juror
discussions about the evidence may increase juror satisfaction by
permitting an outlet for jurors to express their impressions of the
case before retiring for deliberations;
- Juror
discussions about the evidence may promote greater cohesion among
the jurors, reducing the amount of time needed for deliberations;
and
- Jurors
find it difficult to adhere to admonitions about not discussing
evidence. Permission to
engage in such discussions bridges the gap between the court’s
admonitions and jurors’ activities.
Top
What
are some disadvantages regarding juror discussions of evidence during
the trial?
Some
disadvantages include:
- Juror
discussions of the evidence facilitate or encourage the formation or
expression of premature judgments about an evidentiary issue or the
result of the case;
- An
aggressive, overpowering juror might dominate discussions and have
undue influence on the views of others;
- Allowing
juror discussions prior to deliberations may detract from the ideal
of the juror as a neutral decision maker;
- The
quality of deliberations may decline as jurors become more familiar
with each other’s views;
- Sanctioned
and structured discussions might produce a narrower and more
confined set of final deliberations; and
- Juror
stress might increase because of the conflicts produced by prior
discussions.
Top
|
