"Eye" didn't see this

[Spiderman]

Eyeball falls out in court, mistrial declared

Huttick, 48, was on the witness stand Wednesday, weeping as he told the Common Pleas Court jury about the impact of losing an eye when he literally lost his eye.

[Nunzio_Tavulari]

I bet the jury didn’t see that coming.

[picker]

Must’ve been quite a sight to see. Were there many eyewitnesses?

[carnut]

Seeing is believing.

[Ethilrist]

Well, if it gets to a jury vote, the eyes will have it.

[Patty_O_Furniture]

Wood eye? WOOD EYE?

[gotpasswords]

It’s sad when a grown man loses his marbles on the witness stand.

[kayaker]

Coleman set a new trial for March 4 and, with judicial understatement, declared it an “unfortunate, unforeseen incident.”

Heh.

[beowulff]

Funny, it’s usually the jurors who are glassy-eyed!

[Jenaroph]

@Patty_O_Furniture

Wood eye? WOOD EYE?

Hare lip! Hare lip!

[Rachellelogram]

Mistrial? Seriously?

[Balance]

@Rachellelogram

Mistrial? Seriously?

Without digging into court documents, I don’t necessarily know the judge’s reasoning, but I imagine it involved the possibility that the rather vivid demonstration of the injury might bias the jury in the defendant’s favor.

If something happens in court that “taints” the jury–something emotionally affecting, like this incident, or something like a party showing them inadmissible evidence–the court may declare a mistrial to select a new jury pool that hasn’t been subjected to that source of possible bias. If it’s just one or two jurors who have seen something they shouldn’t have, they’re often replaced by alternates, rather than starting over, but that’s not an option with something that happens in open court.

[Gedd]

You would think they would do a better job fitting those things.

[digs]

@Balance

If something happens in court that “taints” the jury–something emotionally affecting, like this incident, or something like a party showing them inadmissible evidence–the court may declare a mistrial to select a new jury pool that hasn’t been subjected to that source of possible bias. If it’s just one or two jurors who have seen something they shouldn’t have, they’re often replaced by alternates, rather than starting over, but that’s not an option with something that happens in open court.

Yeah, since everyone got to eyeball that…

[Annie-Xmas]

I’m glad it wasn’t a trial about a penile implant.

[Balance]

@digs

Yeah, since everyone got to eyeball that…

Rachel had a legitimate question, however derisively asked, so in the midst of the humour, I chose to focus on that. The courts are supposed to try to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, so a judge must naturally remain aware of the optics of a trial.

[QuickSilver]

@Annie-Xmas

I’m glad it wasn’t a trial about a penile implant.

Else, penis would ensue.

[John_DiFool]

@gotpasswords

It’s sad when a grown man loses his marbles on the witness stand.

That’s what people say.

[Toucanna]

[QUOTE=Balance]
Rachel had a legitimate question, however derisively asked, so in the midst of the humour, I chose to focus on that. The courts are supposed to try to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, so a judge must naturally remain aware of the optics of a trial.
[/QUOTE]

Sight?

[SciFiSam]

@Balance

Without digging into court documents, I don’t necessarily know the judge’s reasoning, but I imagine it involved the possibility that the rather vivid demonstration of the injury might bias the jury in the defendant’s favor.

If something happens in court that “taints” the jury–something emotionally affecting, like this incident, or something like a party showing them inadmissible evidence–the court may declare a mistrial to select a new jury pool that hasn’t been subjected to that source of possible bias. If it’s just one or two jurors who have seen something they shouldn’t have, they’re often replaced by alternates, rather than starting over, but that’s not an option with something that happens in open court.

What if it falls out again in the next trial?