In an episode of Happy Days, Fonzie was on a jury in a purse-snatching case–much the same as the story line for the movie 12 Angry Men. In fact, the defendant’s name was (Jason) Davis–like Henry Fonda’s name in the movie.
In the episode, eleven jurors, including Mr. C (Tom Bosley) and a right-winger (Barney Martin) kept voting “Guilty” and Fonzie kept voting “Not Guilty-amundo!”
He explained that:
Defendant Davis had been arrested holding the purse–but apparently claimed he had found it.
Davis was riding an English motorcycle, whose accelerator was on the *left handlebar-*grip–whereas the victim, or an eyewitness, had seen the purse-snatcher grab the purse with his left hand and accelerate the bike with his right hand.
Fonzie asked, “How can he grab the purse with his left hand and accelerate the bike with his left hand? With two left hands? He can’t.”
But I doubt this would be feasible in a real jury, that a juror would be able to make such an analysis on the basis of the facts presented (although the make of bike had been given in evidence within the Happy Days story line.)
Is Fonzie on solid legal ground or not?
I have no idea about the jury part, but I just had to chime in and say that your post really made my day. I can hear Fonzie saying “Not guilty-amundo” and it gives me the warm fuzzies. Or Fonzies, I guess.
If memory serves (and it’s been at least 10 years since I’ve seen that episode) didn’t Fonzie just happen to have a motorcycle magazine with him in the jury room that day? The magazine just happened to have an article about said motorcycle and he used that to convince the rest of the jury. If part of the testimony was regarding the make of motorcycle and which hand grabbed the purse, I don’t really understand what it is you’re questioning. That he’d be able to convince 11 other people? I think even if they didn’t believe the biker was innocent they’d have to let him go based on the testiony and the fact that Fonzie had presented them with a “shadow of doubt.”
I think the question is whether a jury member can properly bring in specialized information that most members of the public don’t have. IIRC, there was a verdict that was set aside because one of the jurors improperly talked about his experience with how back injury claims were handled at big corporations. In general, it would never be questioned, because the lawyers would never find out about it, though.
You bring up a cogent point, Nugent. When I was on a jury the judge ordered us not to seek out information gleaned after the case had started, and in addition to what was presented in the courtroom. I guess it hinges on what Fonzie knew before the trial started–but hey, don’t most of us already know that:
In England, people drive (and presumably ride motorcycles) on the left side of the road.
American motorcycles have the accelerator on the right-hand handlegrip.
Even within the story line, there was this bit of dialog:
FONZIE: Jason Davis was riding a Grand Mark 4 motorcycle when he was picked up.
MR. CUNNINGHAM: We know that, Fonzie.
I missed the part of the epsiode–if any–showing the motorbike, which would have allowed the jurors to ascertain where the accelerator was–and whether it was an English bike or not.
I’m pretty sure it’s improper for the jury to consider any evidence that was not presented to them by the attorneys in the courtroom.
But as a practical matter I don’t see how any fair-minded human could help but bring his own knowledge and experiences to bear, if he hears something in court that he knows is wrong. Maybe the right thing for Fonzie to do would have been to bring his information about the motorcycle to the attention of the judge and force a mistrial.
Just for the record, I was once told by a Welsh biker, in Wales, that motorcycle manufacturers don’t reverse the controls for motorcycles sold in the UK market, as car manufacturers do. I don’t recall why exactly. But if the model in question did have reversed controls, that’s something a biker like Fonzie would know, because it was so unusual.
A small note to mention that in Halliwell’s Film Guide, as well as justly praising the original movie version of 12 Angry Men, Leslie Halliwell also noted snippily “unconvincing in detail…” and frankly, that stands as far as I can see. However the formula is dramatic dynamite, and I can heartily recommend Tony Hancock’s pastiche “Twelve Angry Men”, still available on BBC video. One of the funniest and least-appreciated of his works; Hancock was always at his best given pompous speeches to ham up, and as foreman he was in his element: “Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain? Poor Hungarian peasant girl, who forced King John to close the boozers at half-past ten…”
My father recently served on the jury in an attempted-murder trial. One of the things that was brought up in court was that the defendant had gone to an ATM, then to other venues. There was some kind of time-element involved. During deliberations, another juror, who my dad said was very detail-oriented and nit-picky, made the observation that the defendant might not have been able to go from one place to another in the specified time.
But my father, who has lived in this area for nearly half a century, had no trouble convincing this guy that such a trip, at the time indicated, would have fit into the time frame easily. In fact, when he told me about it, I knew right away that he could have been at point A at a certain time and get to point B by another certain time.
This was not information brought up during the trial, but it was information brought into the deliberation by a jury member. And it helped convict the rotten scumbag, too.
In 1984 I was in a Family Law course and did an oral report on the Charlie Chaplin paternity case. In the course of my research, done mostly in a local law library, I found the case of Neilson v. Houle, 200 Cal. at 729 (1927). In this case, argued before the CA state Supreme Court, it was pointed out that it is wrong for a judge or jury to ignore facts which would contradict what is in general knowledge; to do so would “destroy the integrity of the court.” This case went before the state Supreme Court 20 years before a state Appellate Court ruled Chaplain was the illegitimate baby’s father. (In 1965 the CA Code of Civil Procedure was amended to correct the quirk in the statutes.)
When Abraham Lincoln was a circuit-riding lawyer, he defended a murder suspect. One eyewitness for the prosecution said “I know he [Lincoln’s client] done it. I seen him do it by the light of the moon.” Lincoln produced a copy of the Farmers Almanac, turned to the date of the murder and–NO MOON. Case dismissed.
In the case I sat on, another juror pointed out that the defendant’s story could not be true, concerning the darkess at such-and-such time in the evening, around 8:30; the juror pointed out the incident happened shortly after the Summer Solstice, and it was thus still broad daylight. We handed in a Guilty verdict.