Ask the Juror

[Antinor01]

@Elendil's Heir

Thanks! Some more that occurred to me:

• Did any of the jury questionnaire questions strike you as irrelevant or too intrusive?

Not that I can recall. But then, I didn’t have much to reveal in the questionaire. Possibly some would be considered intrusive by those who had the relevent experiences.

• Did the judge permit the lawyers to say more than a word or two in their objections?

Typically not. Although he did let them explain a few of them. A few times he cut them off mid objection to sustain and then they started to say something else and he said “I said sustained, now MOVE ON.”

• Were there many sidebars?

3 over the 10 days.

• Did the sidebars become annoying to the jurors?

Nope. Actually the break was a little refreshing. The court reporter would make small talk with us, we quietly chatted with each other, etc.

• Could you tell which way, if any, the judge was leaning as to the merits of the case?

No, he did a great job of maintaining at least the appearance of neutrality.

• Did the judge ask questions of any witness?

A couple times. Usually if there was an objection that the question was out of their field or confusing, he would ask the witness if they understood the question and felt they could answer.

• How many exhibits were there?

Hundreds, there were something like 20 binders full of documents. Sadly we only got about 6 pictures, 2 peoples CV’s, and 3 sheets with info they had written during the trial. From our after-trial chat with the attorneys it seems they felt the actual documents (studies, reports and the like) would be confusing to us. Struck me as a little condescending.

• Was any exhibit particularly crucial in reaching the verdict you did?

Not really, though many of the jurors relied heavily on the documents presented by the defense. I attempted to take a balanced view of the overall set of exhibits.

• Was the Navy a party to the case?

Not to my knowledge. It appears they are using the immunity doctrine to prevent direct suit.

• Did any lawyer try to punch the jury’s patriotic buttons, one way or the other?

The defense did to some extent. Essentially saying that “This was war and the US Navy did what they needed to do!”

• How was the overall skill of the lawyers?

Both sides were amazing. I would rate the plaintiff attorney as having somewhat better presentation skills, but the defense attorney seemed more prepared. (as in having documents ready, having his questions together etc)

• Did that make a difference in your or the other jurors’ outlook on the case?

For me not really. I couldn’t really say for the others.

• Was either any opening statement or closing argument particularly influential?

No. It helped to sum up their case, but I took to heart the instruction that attorney arguments are not evidence.

• Did the lawyers seem personally congenial with each other and with the judge?

Both sides sucked up to the judge. Laughing at his little jokes, praising him and so on. It was actually a little sickening. At least during the trial, there was definite animosity between the attorneys. How they get along otherwise I don’t know.

• Were you permitted to take notes?

Yes. The judge also allowed us to keep our notes afterward.

• Were you permitted to submit written questions to the witnesses?

No. Although we really wanted to.

• What suggestions you might offer for a better trial/judicial process next time?

Better explanation of some some of the technical stuff. We had several jurors who, even on starting deliberation, didn’t have a clear idea of what a ‘flange’ was or exactly what a ‘gasket’ did.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Many thanks - I’m glad to have an insider’s perspective.

I permit jurors to submit anonymous written questions at the close of the lawyers’ questioning of any witness. The jurors are told that their questions may either be reworded to comply with the Evidence Rules, or omitted entirely if they’re improper for any reason. Jurors cannot draw any conclusions or infer anything from how a question is reworded, or if it’s omitted. Any questions are reviewed at sidebar, and the lawyers can make their record outside of the hearing of the jury if they object to a question or think it should be reworded. Then the question(s) are asked of the witness.

Some older/more traditional judges don’t permit this - it’s discretionary in Ohio and many other states - but I’ve found it helps the jury do its job better, and jurors seem to appreciate it.

[Antinor01]

@Elendil's Heir

Some older/more traditional judges don’t permit this - it’s discretionary in Ohio and many other states - but I’ve found it helps the jury do its job better, and jurors seem to appreciate it.

I would have appreciated it, as would many of the other jurors. We were itching to ask questions.

Our judge would fit the older catergory, I would guess him to be in his 60’s. In some further reading, I see he has recently handled suits by/against Jennifer Lopez, Danny Bonaduce and others. (the Bonaduce case has been in pre-trial while were in court)

[Lemur866]

I remember about 10 years ago I was on a jury trial for a guy accused of cocaine possession, the prosecutor’s trouble was that the cocaine was in the trunk of a car that belonged to someone else, that the defendant had driven earlier.

So he was at a party, and some guys busted in with shotguns and robbed them all, and then they called the cops, and when the cops came they asked the guy if they could search his car, and of course, he gave permission. And the cops came up with a baggie of cocaine. If the guy had only told the cops “no” he would have been fine, but as several cops here on the Dope have corroborated, people very seldom refuse the cops permission to search, even when they KNOW that the cops will find their drugs.

And the weird thing was when we went to deliberate, they sent us some evidence packets, and, yep, there was a baggie full of a white powdery substance. I always wondered what would have happened if the bailiff came in to gather up the evidence and that baggie was missing. Some jurors wondered how we could tell it was really cocaine, and I argued that if it wasn’t cocaine the defense would surely have provided a lab report proving it wasn’t.

The other funny thing was, the judge said that our first order of business when we started deliberating was to elect a foreman. After we sat down, I said, “Well, I guess we should elect a foreman.” And I saw 11 faces staring at me, as I was wishing I had kept my mouth shut. So if anyone wants to be jury foreman, that seems to be the best method. But honestly, it wasn’t much more work, just tallying votes and saying “Yes, yer Honor” when asked if we reached a verdict.

The other cool thing was about 5 years ago the Judge on the case was running for election to some higher court position, and this was the first time I ever knew the slightest bit about any of the elections for judge.

Eventually we voted to accquit the guy, because the whole case hinged on whether he “possessed” the cocaine, which was in the trunk of a car that didn’t belong to him. I always wished I could give that young man a stern talking-to and tell him that his friends were no good and he was just going to get in more trouble if he continued to associate with them. But I suppose it wouldn’t have done much good even if it was allowed.