# “Jury will disregard”

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-will-disregard/808470>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [February 8, 2018, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-will-disregard/808470 "2018-02-08T20:08:24Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\
**Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-will-disregard/808470/21 "2018-02-10T18:23:48Z")

</div>

> [@Joey\_P](#):
>
> Don’t you hate it when you’re just using a random example to get your point across and people pick it apart almost like they’re attempting to show that your actual point is incorrect.
> 
> I had a friend that would do this. For example, he’d be having a problem with his car starter, I’d make a suggestion about some things I’d tried on my car to rule out this or that when I had a similar problem and he’d always come back with ‘well you have a Honda and I have a Toyota’ or ‘yours is a 2005 and mine is a 1998’ and I couldn’t get it through is head that swapping the relays is still a perfectly valid test.
> 
> Not in this case, but in other, more controversial threads it’s the reason I’ve declined to offer up examples, just to have them picked apart for silly reasons by people that weren’t there.
> 
> @Procrustus, I think most of us understood what you meant.

I really took most of those inquiries as actual questions by people curious about the finer points of law. I know I learned a bit from the answers they got, anyway. They were obviously not directly germaine to the subject of the thread, but I didn’t see most of them as trying to argue against the point.

Anyway, here I am, arguing against your point, sorry, I just thought it may be useful to see it from a different perspective. YMMV.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\
**Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-will-disregard/808470/22 "2018-02-10T22:25:19Z")

</div>

> [@Loach](#):
>
> No it really isn’t.

Is this where I say, yes, it really is? No, that would be silly.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\
**Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-will-disregard/808470/23 "2018-02-10T23:00:20Z")

</div>

> [@aldiboronti](#):
>
> Is this where I say, yes, it really is? No, that would be silly.

Sure but you would be wrong. Did you not read the answers where it was said that the judge understands he is not wiping their mind? I can’t help but think that those that are having an issue with the concept can only think of the TV version where it’s always some dramatic stunt by the lawyer. If there is a chance that the disallowed testimony is going to sway the jury like you seem to think it will a mistrial will happen. Also often the judge doesn’t just say “disregard” and pretend that’s enough. He will take the time to tell the jury what is happening and why.

To put it in the terms you used, if it’s an elephant there would be a mistrial. If it’s a mouse the trial continues.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-will-disregard/808470.md?page=1)