Would an American jury be allowed to do this?

[Derleth]

Another supposedly true story that set off my BS alert.

I'm not going to quote any of it; what it comes down to is that there's a guy on trial for robbing a convenience store and there's images of someone who looks just like him doing it. He was found nearby with money on him and so on and so forth. The thing is, one of the jurors was a seamstress and noticed that the seams on the shirt the guy was wearing when he was caught don't match the seams on the shirt captured on still pictures taken of the robbery. That's the reason the accused was acquitted.

Ignoring everything about how high-resolution a security camera is going to be and so on, assume this evidence was not brought up during trial. Would the jury legally be allowed to acquit based on this evidence?

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by Derleth

Would the jury legally be allowed to acquit based on this evidence?

Sure. The jury can convict or acquit based on no evidence. They don't have to justify their verdict to anyone.

[Trinopus]

I was on a jury once, and we were carefully instructed not to try to solve the crime ourselves. We were told not to apply special knowledge we might have, but to base our decision solely on the evidence presented.

It sounds like a "Twelve Angry Men" fantasy to me. Or just a rogue juror.

[zombywoof]

Can't an individual juror ultimately vote however they want, for whatever reason they want? - link

[jtgain]

All of the above posters, even though contradictory, are correct. A jury is not supposed to bring in outside evidence or special knowledge into the deliberations room, but if one does and the jury acquits, nobody can ever do anything about it.

[Hari Seldon]

Isn't the principle that the jury is supposed to judge the evidence. The seamstress did and the evidence was found wanting. It seems to me that that is exactly the kind of judgment a jury is supposed to make.

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by jtgain

A jury is not supposed to bring in outside evidence or special knowledge into the deliberations room, but if one does and the jury acquits, nobody can ever do anything about it.

I thought so.

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by Hari Seldon

Isn't the principle that the jury is supposed to judge the evidence. The seamstress did and the evidence was found wanting. It seems to me that that is exactly the kind of judgment a jury is supposed to make.

I think the legal response here is that the prosecution was not able to rebut the evidence, as it didn't get to see it. It breaks the fundamental rule of the adversarial system we have, which is that both sides get to use the same facts to build their respective cases.

[Bricker]

As others have observed, the jury has the power to base their decision on virtually anything.

However, there are grounds that are considered improper.

This would not be one. While the seamstress' occupation may have been what made her notice it, the difference in shirts does not need an expert to explain it -- once she pointed it out, every member of the jury could see for themselves that they did not match.

The story sounds made-up to me for a variety of reasons, but as a hypo to explore proper and improper jury influences, it's fine, and the observation from the juror is proper.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Derleth

I think the legal response here is that the prosecution was not able to rebut the evidence, as it didn't get to see it. It breaks the fundamental rule of the adversarial system we have, which is that both sides get to use the same facts to build their respective cases.

And both sides did. The shirt was in evidence, and the pictures were in evidence.

Here's the difference between proper and improper...if the seamstress had said, "Guys, I know fabric, and this kind of fabric, when photographed, has a bluish tint on the film. The pictures don't show that tint, so this isn't the same shirt," then THAT would be improper. The seamstress would be saying, in effect, take my word as an expert.

Here, any member of the jury could have notice the peats in the picture did not match the pleats on the shirt. While the seamstress noticed because of her occupation, she didn't ask anyone to take her word -- she showed each member the mismatch. The jury is entitled to act on that kind of information.

[magnusblitz]

Originally Posted by jtgain

All of the above posters, even though contradictory, are correct. A jury is not supposed to bring in outside evidence or special knowledge into the deliberations room, but if one does and the jury acquits, nobody can ever do anything about it.

But if they brought in outside evidence or special knowledge to convict, it would be grounds to set aside the verdict and do a re-trial, right? (Though of course the defense would obviously need to have proof this happened)

[Chronos]

The movie and the still pictures were both introduced into evidence. And nobody would have batted an eye if one of the jurors voted to acquit based on "that doesn't look like the same guy". How is "that doesn't look like the same shirt the guy is wearing" any less valid?

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by Bricker

she showed each member the mismatch. The jury is entitled to act on that kind of information.

Originally Posted by Chronos

How is "that doesn't look like the same shirt the guy is wearing" any less valid?

I guess this is the better argument, yes. I just wondered if the fact it was initially based on specialized knowledge was more important.

[Northern Piper]

Two previous threads which discuss the issue of a juror's personal knowledge:

Testimony in Spanish, one juror peaks Spanish can lead to mistrial?

iphones and juries

[appleciders]

Originally Posted by Bricker

And both sides did. The shirt was in evidence, and the pictures were in evidence.

Here's the difference between proper and improper...if the seamstress had said, "Guys, I know fabric, and this kind of fabric, when photographed, has a bluish tint on the film. The pictures don't show that tint, so this isn't the same shirt," then THAT would be improper. The seamstress would be saying, in effect, take my word as an expert.

What should a juror do, in that instance? It seems improper to withhold exonerating information, but I can see why a judge wouldn't want jurors acting as expert witnesses, either.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Derleth

I guess this is the better argument, yes. I just wondered if the fact it was initially based on specialized knowledge was more important.

No, that's okay. Each juror brings their own experience and background to the jury room. But the line is drawn where one juror basically testifies to facts that the other jurors don't know and can't see for themselves.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by appleciders

What should a juror do, in that instance? It seems improper to withhold exonerating information, but I can see why a judge wouldn't want jurors acting as expert witnesses, either.

Without communicating this information to the other jury members, the juror should send a note to the judge, saying s/he can longer follow the judge's instructions to judge the case only on the evidence presented.

This should cause the judge to question the juror with both lawyers present, and at that point the juror can explain the blue tint issue. Now the defense knows it and is equipped to deal with the issue as best they can. The judge can seat an alternate juror (if there is one), ask both sides if they'll agree to proceed with fewer than the statutory number of jurors, or declare a mistrial.

[bengangmo]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Without communicating this information to the other jury members, the juror should send a note to the judge, saying s/he can longer follow the judge's instructions to judge the case only on the evidence presented.

This should cause the judge to question the juror with both lawyers present, and at that point the juror can explain the blue tint issue. Now the defense knows it and is equipped to deal with the issue as best they can. The judge can seat an alternate juror (if there is one), ask both sides if they'll agree to proceed with fewer than the statutory number of jurors, or declare a mistrial.

Jurors are also allowed to ask to have evidence explained aren't they? (I know not in "open court). But if some of the testimony like the blue tint thingy conflicts with their area of expertise, couldn't they send a note to the judge highlighting that?

[Nawth Chucka]

Originally Posted by bengangmo

Jurors are also allowed to ask to have evidence explained aren't they? (I know not in "open court). But if some of the testimony like the blue tint thingy conflicts with their area of expertise, couldn't they send a note to the judge highlighting that?

No, testimony can only be repeated for jurors IME.

[Northern Piper]

And in open court.

[Bartman]

Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka

No, testimony can only be repeated for jurors IME.

Not always true. When I was on a jury, we were allowed to submit questions to witnesses... well we submitted them to the judge, who reviewed them with the lawyers, then the judge asked the questions and both prosecution and defense were allowed to ask any follow up questions.

In this case, I had specific computer knowledge and was able to basically get a witness to introduce some points I was amazed neither side had brought up.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by bengangmo

Jurors are also allowed to ask to have evidence explained aren't they? (I know not in "open court). But if some of the testimony like the blue tint thingy conflicts with their area of expertise, couldn't they send a note to the judge highlighting that?

In fact, this is a question with fifty different answers -- more if you count the federal circuits. In some states, jurors are not permitted to take handwritten notes, much less write questions for submission to a witness. Some states and at least one federal circuit permit jurors to submit written questions for witnesses in civil trials. Some give judges the discretion to allow the practice in criminal trials as well.

[C K Dexter Haven]

My one jury experiece: the state was making an offer to buy a piece of land. The state provided an expert witness to tell us what they thought was a fair price. The other side didn't show up (hence presented no evidence.) The judge told us that we must now decide that was the price of the land. He said that, if the other side had presented alternate evidence, we could have accepted either price or any price in between, but since they didn't, we must accept the evidence presented. One juror raised his hand to ask why the other side didn't show up (e.g., a sick old person who was in hospital?). The judge said, OK, you're off the jury, and they brought in another juror. So we shrugged our shoulders and agreed with the evidence.

Thus, there's a limit to what jurors can ask. We weren't allowed deliberation time, either, although we all felt extremely dissatisfied at not knowing the reason for the other side not showing up. (If the reason was that they were OK with the price, that was one thing. If the reason was the peron didn't even know this was going on.... )

[Nava]

C K Dexter Haven, that case was a textbook example of a legal principle which comes from Roman law if no further: when someone can't be present to defend his side, he's considered to be conceding it. Why he wasn't there is irrelevant. And with the existence of lawyers, even something like "plaintiff got run over by a truck" isn't an excuse to not appear: their lawyer should appear and, if appropriate, ask for a delay.

[Alan Smithee]

Nava, that assumes that the plaintiff can afford a lawyer for a civil case. I don't think it's impossible (or even unlikely) that the other party in that case had a very good reason for failing to appear. I'm pretty sure it's even possible that the party who did appear filed motions changing the venue or date of the hearing in order to confuse or cause unnecessary expense to the other party (who may have been travelling from out of state, for example). If I'd been on that jury, I think I'd have told the judge I couldn't serve after the first juror was let go. I understand the legal principles involved, but I don't think I could participate in good conscience in a case like that, where I knew I wasn't hearing both sides and wasn't being given all the pertinent information, and was being coerced into rendering a certain decision. If the court wants (or is required) to render that decision as a matter of law, fine, but I couldn't honestly give my imprimatur as a citizen that the facts were as I was being told.

[md2000]

So, did the jury have time to deliberate, or were they expected to rubber-stamp the one side's version? I would imagine that a jury could say to themselves "the expert looks shifty, i don't believe him" and raise the price 20% and the judge would have no grounds to dispute that... although the one side might appeal. After all, the whole point of a jury is "do you believe the witness(es) presented"? If the judge simply dismissed a juror for asking instead of explaining the law, sounds like he was in on the railroad.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

I was on a jury once, and we were carefully instructed not to try to solve the crime ourselves. We were told not to apply special knowledge we might have, but to base our decision solely on the evidence presented.

Yeah but that's BS in it's own way. Let's say a crime happened and blah blah blah the prosecuter's math is faulty in a subtle way that the defense didn't pick up on. Am I as a juror with an BA and MS in math really not to say to my fellow jurors that the math the prosecution is hinging their case on doesn't work? Or if Martini Enfield is sitting on the jury dopefest and he points out an error in the prosecution's description of a rifle, he is supposed to ignore that?

ETA: I'm not necessarily saying the juror should expouse their knowledge a la Henry Fonda, but our specialized knowledge certainly should influence how we vote.

[Northern Piper]

If it involves knowledge that was not presented in open court, then yes, it must be ignored. Otherwise, the case is being decided on secret information that the parties do not know about, which is a breach of basic principle of a fair trial.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by md2000

If the judge simply dismissed a juror for asking instead of explaining the law, sounds like he was in on the railroad.

The jury's job is to decide the case that is presented to them. Why the one side did not appear is not relevant to the case. The judge in this case apparently concluded that the juror's questioning meant that he was not going to confine his decision to the facts of the case, and therefore should not sit on the jury. That's not a sign of corruption on the judge's part.

[Nava]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

...

Hey, I was just explaining it. My own legal tradition doesn't have that principle; the divergences between Roman and Foral Law are a constant headache for out-of-region lawyers practicing here and for local lawyers who get an out-of-region judge. Just last year there was an enormous scandal when a local judge agreed that handing back a mortgaged flat cancelled the mortgage: "but that goes against every other judicial decisiooooon!" "but it goes against [national law which does not apply here]!" I tried to explain to a non-local lawyer that in Navarra mortgages are specifically set like that, by local law, but he didn't believe me until I showed him my mortgage contract and gave him the reference of the law.

[md2000]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

The jury's job is to decide the case that is presented to them. Why the one side did not appear is not relevant to the case. The judge in this case apparently concluded that the juror's questioning meant that he was not going to confine his decision to the facts of the case, and therefore should not sit on the jury. That's not a sign of corruption on the judge's part.

"Questioning", or "question"? A jury relies on the judge to explain the finer points of law. If the juror started arguing with the judge, then dismissal was warranted. Simply asking an obvious layman's question and being turfed for it does not sound like fair and impartial; it sounds more like "I'm going to fire the guy who sounds like he won't go along with what I say" which defeats the purpose of having a jury and also intimidates the remaining jurors. Motives are anyone's guess. I guess it depends on the whole context of the conversation.

[al27052]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

If it involves knowledge that was not presented in open court, then yes, it must be ignored. Otherwise, the case is being decided on secret information that the parties do not know about, which is a breach of basic principle of a fair trial.

Yeah, but I'd rather have a jury full of geniuses with multiple degrees than a jury full of illiterate, dumb-as-a-rock knuckle-draggers, if I was on trial. Wouldn't you?

[Northern Piper]

Would you want your case decided based on secret evidence that you don't know about and haven't had a chance to test?

You're confusing intelligence with personal knowledge of the jurors. I'd want a jury of intelligent people; I wouldn't want a jury that decides my case on allegations that I don't know about and haven't had a chance to challenge.

A case is to be determined based on the evidence presented by the two parties in open court, with both parties being able to challenge the other party's evidence.

It's not to be decided based on secret evidence unknown to either party. Nor is it to be decided on evidence that neither party has had a chance to challenge. Why assume that the juror is right and the witness was wrong? The juror's assertions have not been tested in open court by either party; the witness's assertions have been tested in that way.

[md2000]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Would you want your case decided based on secret evidence that you don't know about and haven't had a chance to test?

You're confusing intelligence with personal knowledge of the jurors. I'd want a jury of intelligent people; I wouldn't want a jury that decides my case on allegations that I don't know about and haven't had a chance to challenge.

A case is to be determined based on the evidence presented by the two parties in open court, with both parties being able to challenge the other party's evidence.

It's not to be decided based on secret evidence unknown to either party. Nor is it to be decided on evidence that neither party has had a chance to challenge. Why assume that the juror is right and the witness was wrong? The juror's assertions have not been tested in open court by either party; the witness's assertions have been tested in that way.

How are photos of the perp's shirt, vs. defendant's shirt, "secret evidence"? It's right there, in the exhibits presented in open court. The fact that people who don't care as much about clothes (men!) did not pick up on the fact that they were rather obviously two different shirts simply means that it's a good thing 12 varied people not 1 are looking at the evidence.

If the prosecution had this data, and did not present evidence that the person could have changed shirts, well that's a detail they did not present. If the jury convicted on "we think he changed shirts" when nobody in court made any such suggestion, then that would be concerning. If they decide on evidence presented, even if the details were not pointed out to them, that's their job.

At what point does general life experience come into play? If a jury is told by an "expert" paid for by the one side "This property is worth $100,000" and several of them think "Hey, I paid a lot more than that for my house, it's smaller and and a worse location", should their common sense override the one-sided testimony? I thought the one thing the jurors DO bring to court is their common sense.

Somewhere, valuation stops being expert territory and starts being common sense. I can tell the difference between a house worth $50,000 and $250,000 without expert testimony (or else he would have to really explain his logic!), but I would have to rely on an expert to tell me the difference between, say, $240,000 and $260,000.

[Northern Piper]

Hi, md2000, I wasn't talking about the OP; I was responding to Saint Cad (Post 27) and his suggestion that jurors should be able to rely on personal knowledge that was not led in court, and also to al27052 (post 32). Sorry if that wasn't clear - the thread is moving quickly.

With respect to the OP, I agree - if the evidence was led in court, tested by both parties, and both parties had a chance to comment on the evidence, then it's up to the jury to assess that evidence. If they found a significant discrepancy between two pieces of evidence and decided the case on that discrepancy, that is exactly the role of the jury.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Originally Posted by al27052

Yeah, but I'd rather have a jury full of geniuses with multiple degrees than a jury full of illiterate, dumb-as-a-rock knuckle-draggers, if I was on trial. Wouldn't you?

Depends on whether I'm guilty.

[md2000]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Hi, md2000, I wasn't talking about the OP; I was responding to Saint Cad (Post 27) and his suggestion that jurors should be able to rely on personal knowledge that was not lead in court, and also to al27052 (post 32). Sorry if that wasn't clear - the thread is moving quickly.

With respect to the OP, I agree - if the evidence was led in court, tested by both parties, and both parties had a chance to comment on the evidence, then it's up to the jury to assess that evidence. If they found a significant discrepancy between two pieces of evidence and decided the case on that discrepancy, that is exactly the role of the jury.

Thanks.

What about common sense. If you were in a one-sided case where IYHO the expert was undervaluing, would you think it was the jury's entitlement to use their common sense about their world to disagree with him?

OTOH, I guess the question is - where does your world experience stop being common sense and start being specialized personal expertise? I would suggest when less than half the jurors have such expertise or you have to explain it to them, but then, IANAL.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

If I'd been on that jury, I think I'd have told the judge I couldn't serve after the first juror was let go. I understand the legal principles involved, but I don't think I could participate in good conscience in a case like that, where I knew I wasn't hearing both sides and wasn't being given all the pertinent information, and was being coerced into rendering a certain decision.

But that approach means that a party who doesn't want to participate in the court process can defeat the rights of the other party. If that principle were followed, then why would any defendant ever appear in court?

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by md2000

"Questioning", or "question"? A jury relies on the judge to explain the finer points of law. If the juror started arguing with the judge, then dismissal was warranted. Simply asking an obvious layman's question and being turfed for it does not sound like fair and impartial; it sounds more like "I'm going to fire the guy who sounds like he won't go along with what I say" which defeats the purpose of having a jury and also intimidates the remaining jurors. Motives are anyone's guess. I guess it depends on the whole context of the conversation.

The judge's role is more than just to explain the law; the judge also has the responsibility to ensure that the trial is conducted according to the law and to ensure a fair trial. That role includes deciding questions of the relevance of evidence. The fact that the defendant hasn't shown up to defend the case is not a relevant issue for the facts that the jury is being asked to find, and to apply to the law in rendering their verdict. The judge must have concluded that the juror was straying too far from the role of the jury. Not sure I would have done that if I were a judge in that situation (might have tried to explain it to the jurors), but you're right - the context is important; the juror's tone of voice and body language are factors the judge can consider.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by md2000

Thanks.

What about common sense. If you were in a one-sided case where IYHO the expert was undervaluing, would you think it was the jury's entitlement to use their common sense about their world to disagree with him?

OTOH, I guess the question is - where does your world experience stop being common sense and start being specialized personal expertise? I would suggest when less than half the jurors have such expertise or you have to explain it to them, but then, IANAL.

Yes, the jury has the option to not believe a witness, based on their common sense ( at least, in my jurisdiction - as Bricker noted upthread, the rules on this sort of issue can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). Even when there is only one witness to a particular fact, the jury is not bound to accept that witness's testimony. For instance, if a witness testified that a late model Honda that had been destroyed in an accident cost a million dollars, the jury can say, "we don't believe you". It gets tricky in the case CK Dex mentioned, where there is no evidence from the other side.

[Alan Smithee]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

But that approach means that a party who doesn't want to participate in the court process can defeat the rights of the other party. If that principle were followed, then why would any defendant ever appear in court?

Like I said, the court can make the finding itself as a matter of law (or should be able to), or--alternatively--the other party could be subpoenaed or held in contempt but no judgment given at that time, or the court could investigate the reason for the absence and act on its own discretion, or any number of other alternatives that could be provided for within the law. (I'm not claiming any of these are currently possible, but if not, the law should perhaps be amended.)

What can't happen is that I as a jury member make a judgment based on the facts when I know that I don't have all the facts. I'm being asked to do something impossible--to evaluate the evidence presented by one side when there is no competing evidence against which it weigh it. That doesn't mean the evidence presented is automatically correct; it means there is nothing for a jury to decide. For me to abide by the judge's instructions and issue a decision anyway would be dishonest and a violation of my integrity.

[md2000]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

But that approach means that a party who doesn't want to participate in the court process can defeat the rights of the other party. If that principle were followed, then why would any defendant ever appear in court?

It depends. Is the "I can't serve" comment in response to the one side's absence, or the apparently arbitrary and caprcious firing of the juror?

I agree, why the side failed to appear is not relevant to the case. However, if a juror asks an honest layman question and the result is apparent intimidation, a jury may react to being bullied by pushing back.

Sometimes judges can be dicks. sometimes, their actions are entirely justified. Context is everything.

[aldiboronti]

We've had juries acquit in the UK simply because they didn't agree with the law the guy was prosecuted under. Jury nullification I think it's called. Could that happen in the US?

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by md2000

So, did the jury have time to deliberate, or were they expected to rubber-stamp the one side's version? I would imagine that a jury could say to themselves "the expert looks shifty, i don't believe him" and raise the price 20% and the judge would have no grounds to dispute that... although the one side might appeal. After all, the whole point of a jury is "do you believe the witness(es) presented"?

I agree with this. If the property in question was a 4500 sq. foot house with a 4 acre lot located in the most desirable area of town, and the expert testified that he thought the value of the property was $4.23, then surely a jury can disbelieve the witness entirely.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by magnusblitz

But if they brought in outside evidence or special knowledge to convict, it would be grounds to set aside the verdict and do a re-trial, right? (Though of course the defense would obviously need to have proof this happened)

Yes. But as Bricker correctly points out, the seamstress could offer knowledge that would be readily apparent to the jury. "See how the shirt is identical, right down to the stitching!!!" would not be reversible error because the lay jurors could see that for themselves.

If you had an engineer doing complex calculus on the chalk board and asking jurors to take his word for it, that may well be reversible error. A lot of the talk in the jury room comes out. When a defendant is convicted, the attorney usually tries to interview jurors and get the story about what happened in deliberations. The jurors have no obligation to talk, but usually a few want to talk.

[Rick]

Yes it does, see OJ Simpson.

[md2000]

Originally Posted by aldiboronti

We've had juries acquit in the UK simply because they didn't agree with the law the guy was prosecuted under. Jury nullification I think it's called. Could that happen in the US?

Yeah, but the legal profession in most places is very hostile to the idea (especially judges); which might explain the Judge's sudden dismissal of the juror.

[md2000]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I agree with this. If the property in question was a 4500 sq. foot house with a 4 acre lot located in the most desirable area of town, and the expert testified that he thought the value of the property was $4.23, then surely a jury can disbelieve the witness entirely.

Especially if the one side's lawyer whispers to him "nobody's here from the other side, we can say anything. Lowball it...!"

..but notice these examples are so patently out of line with "common sense" that the expert witness can be obviously disbelieved. I guess the real question comes up when he estimate is a bit low but believeable. If one juror sells real estate, he can't tell the others "IMHO that is a low number" as an expert. The others would have to figure this out without his help.

[Alan Smithee]

Originally Posted by md2000

Especially if the one side's lawyer whispers to him "nobody's here from the other side, we can say anything. Lowball it...!"

..but notice these examples are so patently out of line with "common sense" that the expert witness can be obviously disbelieved. I guess the real question comes up when he estimate is a bit low but believeable. If one juror sells real estate, he can't tell the others "IMHO that is a low number" as an expert. The others would have to figure this out without his help.

Or not. According to Dex's post the judge instructed the jurors to accept the state witness's amount.

[md2000]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

Or not. According to Dex's post the judge instructed the jurors to accept the state witness's amount.

That was my question. Were the jurors even allowed to discuss this situation? What happened if they said "no your honor, we choose a different price"? What happens if the judge does not allow them to retire and discuss?

As we've seen from many other lawsuits, judges and appeals can change what a jury decides in terms of money; but just that override could become grounds for appeal, I imagine.

If the one side fails to appear, are there not early submissions at the beginning of the case in court documents, or does that side have to be there for that submission to be presented?