Can juries request evidence? I met a defense attorney once who told me about a case he had where his client was accused of violating a restraining order. The order required the defendant to remain some specified distance from the person who asked for the order. It came out either during discover or trial that the defendant had called this person from a payphone. The defense attorney measured the distance and found it to be within the prohibited range. He told me that the prosecution never brought this up at trial and never investigated it. The defendant was convicted on the strength of over evidence but the attorney felt that it was possible that he might not have been. I want to know if the jury could have asked the court about the distance in question or are they only allowed to ask about procedural matters and legal interpretations?
I was once on a jury that asked to review evidence that had already been presented in court. That was during the deliberations, and didn’t seem to be a problem.
Juries can ask to see & review any evidence that was admitted in court (including reviewing the testimony transcript) during their deliberations. They can also ask the Court questions if they don’t understand the jury instructions or any other procedural matter.
They may not consider any fact that was not put forth in the trial. They cannot consider any fact that was stricken from the record or any question that was withdrawn. They cannot consider any “outside facts” from a source other than the trial.
More judges are allowing jury to ask questions of witnesses (after screening by the judge and lawyers). It’s kind of fun, and sometimes useful.
They don’t typically ask for tangible evidence. I remember one juror asking for a copy of some document that had not been admitted into evidence. The judge told him he could only have the exhibits that had been admitted.
Is it ok for juries to use evidence that was introduced but not pointed out during trial?
For example, a picture is introduced into evidence for some reason. When the jury examines the picture they see something in it that was never brought up during the trial but sways their judgement one way or the other.
I know it would be difficult to stop but is it ok for this to happen?
It could get a bit more complicated, depending on how the jury uses the evidence. For example, if one of the jurors offers an expert opinion about some facet of the photo, that could be a big problem. OTOH, if it’s just some evidentiary fact that is apparent in the photo, it’s probably ok. As **Hello Again ** says, the *content * of the photo is evidence.
Good point, I didn’t make that clear at all. If a juror had an expert opinion about some aspect of the photograph but that fact was not proven at trial, it cannot enter the jury’s consideration.
If the juror felt so affected by his personal knowledge that he could not deliberate on the facts as presented, then it might be a mistrial.
The jury is known as the “finder of fact” because they are the ones who decide what facts were proven. They are not there to decide what actually happened although they often attempt do this, a problem I have heard called the “CSI-ification of the jury.”
I remember this being an issue in a trial a few years ago. I forget the details of the case, but one photograph of the interior of the home showed holes in a closet door. This led the jury to conclude that this was a home filled with many acts of violence, even though the photograph had not been entered to show the holes or make any claim of violent acts. When one of the jurors mentioned this after the trial, the defense immediately started campaigning for a retrial. I don’t know what the eventual resolution of the case was. The case made the national news at the time solely because of the issue raised by the OP, can the jury consider evidence that is not presented as evidence during the trial?
There was probably a lot of media hype in the reports that I saw, so I doubt that they accurately covered the real legal issues involved.
A jury can ask to see, hear or touch any exhibit that was introduced during the trial (some judges won’t let drug evidence or weapons go into the deliberation room, but will permit the jurors to handle it in open court). Jurors can’t do their own research (a glaring error in Twelve Angry Men), or ask for a physical item of evidence that was not actually admitted.
I permit my jurors to submit written questions of witnesses, cautioning them that, after consulting with counsel for both sides, I may rephrase or omit any such questions consistent with the rules of evidence and the interests of justice. More often than not nobody has a question, and when they do, it’s usually just a matter of clarification. Surveys have shown jurors like having the option, though, and are more engaged in the trial when they do. Makes sense to me.
This can help illustrate what I was asking. Thanks.
Could, for example, the jury could ask how the holes were made during the trial? If they saw what appeared to be a home that had been the site of many acts of violence, could they confirm their conclusion rather than proceeding from an assumption?
If one of the jurors did do his own research, could the jury ask counsel to confirm or deny it? Or would that result in a mistrial?
If one of the jurors was an expert in some aspect of the evidence (say, a doctor or a photographic examiner), rather than telling the other jurors about it, could the jury request that counsel drill down on the aspect in question? IOW, can they ask expert testimony be entered into evidence?
Another example that will come up today in the trial I’m involved in.
In the process of arguing over which exhibits will be admitted into evidence, the prosecutor was able to get several exhibits (mainly emails) admitted which weren’t brought up during the trial. During jury instructions and closing arguments today and tomorrow, it will be brought up to the jurors that while these emails are evidence, they can’t be viewed for their truth.
In other words, if Exhibit 10 is an email from Alice to Bob in which Alice says that Carol and Dale are having an affair, the evidence is simply that such an email exists. The jurors are not to use the email to determine the truth of whether Carol and Dale actually were having an affair – they can’t deliberate on the content of the email.
One a case I was on, a civil one, a potential juror was an expert in the area of the case. He said that he would be unable to set aside his expert knowledge if evidence or an argument was introduced that contradicted what he knew. He was excused.
Switchblade, actually. It’s of some significance since the design of a switchblade, a different juror argues, makes an overhand stabbing motion unlikely.
There is also a moment when the jurors reflect on nose-dents on a female witness, suggesting she might wear eyeglasses and thus might be unreliable since she might not have been wearing them the night of the murder (though I know from having worn glasses that if they’re resting on a nightstand, putting them on takes less than a second). Another juror speculates that perhaps the witness wore sunglasses (deliberation takes place in summer, incidentally) or glasses for farsightedness. I wondered at the time if they could request this information.
Actually, the behaviour of Juror #8 is pretty much like an idealized defense attorney, systematically challenging the evidence bit by bit.
No. If any fact from outside the evidence enters the case, and substiantially influences the outcome it is grounds for a mistrial.
BTW, the jury is usually instructed along these lines whenever they leave the courtroom for the day or the weekend; they are told to avoid any outside knowledge of the proceedings, not to do any research on their own, and (when relevant) not to follow the news. So, if someone actively sought outside information, in addition to causing a mistrial he might also potentially be in contempt of court.
For example, in a recent trial transcript I was reading regarding an accident that took place in a city park, the judge instructed the jurors specifically not to enter the park over the weekend.
So, in many courts, jurors can suggest questions for witnesses without screwing up the trial. Of course, that doesn’t mean the jurors get to question the witnesses themselves. They’ve got to write a note to the judge.