I wouldn’t let it affect my decision. Even if I knew for a fact that he skipped or had “voluntarily absented” himself from the proceeding by screaming, biting and spitting on everyone in sight, the evidence would have to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the specific crime he was charged with or I’d cut him loose. Even jerks deserve a fair trial.
The half hour was probably spent debating this question - ‘how stupid is this judge for giving an undocumented from Mexico a bond on a felony drug charge*?’ I mean, just WTF did he expect this guy to do? Busted, on tape, knows he’s looking at a serious bid…what possible rationale would he have for staying around?
On the other hand, anyone enough to get caught selling that much meth on tape will get busted again. Soon.
*I’m assuming it was a felony, given the amount of meth sold and the prison sentence handed down.
I would try to not let it matter, though who knows if some subconscious prejudice might not slip in.
Of course, I would guess that the accused is losing out on the chance to be questioned by you (and cross-examined by the DA) and therefore to present his/her side of the story, which might in and of itself make the prosecutor’s case easier to believe by default.
katie1341, what happens in this sort of situation? Does the defendant get some sort of contempt-of-court citation for skiving off his court appearance? I’m assuming it’s not “show up if you feel like it”!!
funny timing here too. I was supposed to serve jury duty today myself. Decided not to show up. OK, I made that decision when I called the automated number and they told me not to show up… 
This reminds me of an issue we had in a trial I participated in some years ago. At issue was whether or not a scientist and the people who worked with him had been involved in illegally disposing of chemicals that were hard to get rid of, or if those chemicals were being used in unusual and creative – but legitimate – scientific experiments.
Lots of theories were put forth by both sides about what the lead scientist had been up to, but after several weeks of testimony, jurors began to send notes to the judge wondering why the scientist himself hadn’t testified. What they hadn’t been told (because it had been determined that it wasn’t legally relevant to the charges at issue) is that the scientist had been killed by an explosion during these activities.
In the last month of the trial, it was decided to reveal this information the jurors, which was clearly a shock to them, although we don’t know how much it ultimately affected their decisions (they hung, 10-2 for conviction) because we didn’t get to talk to them afterward.
Oh - missed the fact that you had already replied. Undocumented illegal from Mexico, felony meth conviction, I guess a contempt-of-court citation is the least of his worries!
Has he been located yet?
And is the judge who granted bail typically this stupid?
It wouldn’t have influenced my opinion if I was on the jury. I know enough about trials to know that the defendant doesn’t always have to be there.
Great God in Heaven. The last month? I served on a jury recently and kind of enjoyed it. For two days. I think I’d be pretty cranky if I was on the jury for one that lasted months!
Yes, I think it would. In a meth trial, a sudden absence wouldn’t lead me to wonder if he was visiting his mother.
No.
I might briefly wonder where the defendant is but it wouldn’t affect my decision. I served on a jury a little while ago and it was drilled into us that it is the prosecutor’s job to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant doesn’t have to do a single thing to show their innocence.
In our case, the D never took the stand and his attorneys asked very few questions. During our deliberations one or two people asked “I wonder why he didn’t take the stand?” and we all then immediately dismissed that question and made our decision based on the evidence presented.
D isn’t there? So what. It’s not evidence.
Yes. Negatively, but only slightly.
For all I know, it’s not uncommon for defendants to let their attorneys handle the trial. But I couldn’t help but wonder.
Nah. I would know he was skipping school without a permission slip, but I would also have known that if we were allowed to negatively infer from his absence, the prosecutor would have been jumping up and down on that fact all day long. So no mention by the prosecutor = not evidence = not taken into consideration.
But I’m a trial lawyer; they never let me sit on juries. 
It was very odd, and my first (and only) experience with a trial that length. It went from the beginning of October to mid-February, if I recall correctly.
The worst part of it was that one of our jurors died of a heart attack on the way to court one morning. That was such a sad day for me, and I know the jurors felt like they’d lost a family member. These people had sat in trial together and dined together every weekday for probably two months at that point.
Those folks should be excused from jury duty for life if they wanted. They were certainly dedicated.
I would wonder, probably. But if no mention were made, I don’t think it would affect my decision.
You know, this is something I’ve always been curious about. Can members of the jury pose questions? (Individually or through the foreman) Apparently yes, at least in your jurisdiction. How would it be handled?
In a way, it’s too bad. I would have assumed that he skipped, and if I am reading the thread correctly, I would have been correct.
But that’s too bad. I shouldn’t assume that - I should assume that he was gone for some innocent or irrelevant reason, like illness. And I would say to myself that I was not taking his absense into consideration, but I might be affected by it anyway. Fortunately it seems the evidence is a bit too overwhelming for my assumptions to make any difference, but still…
I am trying to estimate the intelligence of someone who goes to trial on a meth deal caught on tape. Did he know he was going to get bail? I have a sneaking feeling that maybe he was planning on taking an unscheduled trip, and decided to plead to get the chance.
:shrugs:
As others have mentioned, no doubt he will come to the attention of the authorities again shortly. Crime doesn’t pay, and much of the reason for this is that it doesn’t attract the best and the brightest.
Regards,
Shodan
If the jury has a question while deliberating, the foreman writes it on one of the jury question forms and gives it to the bailiff (or deputy, or marshal, or whoever is keeping the jury sequestered) who then gives it to the judge. The judge notifies the attorneys that the jury has a question and they discuss what the judge’s answer should be. Probably 99 times out of 100 the answer has to be “I cannot answer this question, please refer back to the jury charge and consider the evidence entered at trial.”