Legal Question: How does a Jury "Disregard" Obvious Evidence

I suspect the point is that, while there is no doubt that the victims are dead, and these bodies are theirs, the police won’t be able to bring any evidence of where they were found, or of what else they found in the house, and all of that evidence might link the defendants more strongly to the crime. Presumably the defense is going to be that there is insufficient evidence that the defendants committed the crime, and that someone else (unidentified) might have done it, not that no crime took place.

Me too. I read the news regularly, but I skip over stuff like this. People randomly do horrible things all the time. But it’s not interesting for me to read about it.

Christ, I live in Canada and know all about this case. :confused:

Who is Entwhistle?
I’ve never heard of this guy.
You can find 11 more like me somewhere.

But your jury pool isn’t made up of people out there somewhere. In most cases, it’s made up of people living in the community where the crime occurred. I think you would be hard-pressed to find many people in Boston who haven’t heard of the Entwistle case.

Reminds me of an old David Letterman joke about the massive media coverage of the OJ case. He was commenting on the defense’s desire to find 12 jurors who had not heard of the OJ case and asked, “How are they going to find 12 Amish people living in LA?”

ralph124c as others have pointed out, and as was pointed out in the previous thread, most of the big evidentiary issues are resolved before trial. Of course, some issues come up at trial by surprise, and sometimes the judges change their minds.

It’s possible the trial judge could deny the motion to suppress evidence based on the a bad warrant and reconsider the decision later on, based on a subsequent motion or trial objection.

Ideally this decision would happen before any evidence was introduced before the jury, but again, it’s possible the cat gets out of the bag before the ruling. It’s also likely that the prosecutor would have mentioned the evidence in an opening statement. Opening statements aren’t evidence, but can still result in trial prejudice under the right conditions.

In cases like that, the court has a few choices:

  1. Curative or limiting instructions (“The jury will discregard all references to the smoking gun found in his hand at the time he was arrested”) or (“The prosecutor referred to bodies found at the defendant’s house. Statements of counsel are not evidence, and no evidence has been introduced on this point.”)

  2. Mistrial. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nh&vol=0308\remic107&invol=1 ; http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=394&invol=731 ; http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=in&vol=app\09240301.jgb&invol=2 (as you can see, mistrials are hard to get). A mistrial solves the tainted jury problem by getting a new one–or under some circumstances–ending the case. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/09/MNGLQO1LRS1.DTL

  3. A directed verdict of acquittal on some or all of the charges. If the evidence is very significant, and the court ultimately excludes it, the prosecution may not be able to prove its case. For example, a screw up that gets the body and most of the physical evidence excluded will present significant problems for the prosecution. The prosecution may not even be able to prove that the victim is really dead. If the court concludes that no reasonable jury could convict (http://www.boulder-bar.org/bar_media/trial/12.6.html ) the court can take the case (or part of it) from the jury. Here’s a case where that happened (sort of): http://coa.nmcourts.com/documents/opinions/Gomez%20Ro.pdf

I served as jury foreman in federal court last year and we were quite good at making our decision based only on the evidence. We spent a lot of time arguing and debating various things and any time somebody would bring up something that wasn’t entered into evidence there would always be someone else ready to say “But we can’t use that”.

I seem to recall once or twice during court proceedings that the judge turned to us and said “The jury will disregard that” but it wasn’t for anything major, and we certainly didn’t use it.

We had some big questions (such as why the case was being brought 8 years after the events in question) which we were able to ask the prosecutor after the case was over - turned out that the defendant had been on the run for 8 years, changing his identity constantly. For whatever reason that was not allowed to be mentioned in court so we didn’t know it during our deliberations; the question came up (“Why are they doing this now?”) but it wasn’t part of our decision making process.

So to answer the OP specifically, the jury doesn’t “erase” something from their minds, but if they are doing their jobs they know that they can’t use it to make their decision. If the jury I served on was representative, juries are quite capable of doing that.

I ask the Great Legal Minds of the SDMB (hi, Jodi) - could this have been admitted as evidence of a guilty mind?

Regards,
Shodan

In what respect?

Here’s a surprise: It depends. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=va&vol=1961011&invol=1; http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=10th&navby=case&no=986224 ; http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20031119.html ; http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=case&no=9820419cr0

Findlaw links aren’t particularly helpful when one isn’t registered for Findlaw, Gfactor. :slight_smile:

Ha! Thanks for the elevation to GLM/SDMB. :slight_smile: As to your question, and as Gfactor said: Maybe. But the chance that the jury might infer a guilty mind is probably why the evidence of flight was kept out. Flight can support an inference of guilt, but there are other reasons people might flee (like fear of the police or belief they will not receive a fair trial), so it is my understanding that judges look very carefully at flight evidence before allowing it in. They don’t want the jury to place too much weight on the fact the defendant fled, since that alone is not enough to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A conviction that rested heavily on flight evidence would probably be vulnerable on appeal.

But I say “It is my understanding” because I’ve never practiced criminal law or dealt with a flight issue, and so will defer to those who have.

Heh. Didn’t give me a problem or ask for a login. Allow me to summarize.

Some cases say use of an alias can be introduced as evidence of consciousness of guilt. Most cases say flight can be introduced under some circumstances as evidence of consciousness of guilt. OTOH, admission of the evidence isn’t automatic. Here’s an illustrative statement of the test from one of the cases:

And from another one that I’m not sure I cited:

Me neither. Only Entwistle I know of is the late Who bassist.

I can imagine plausible scenarios in which evidence is excluded which would lead a reasonable jury to find the defendant guilty.

I wonder if it has ever happened that evidence was excluded which would lead a reasonable jury to find the defendant innocent?

So in other words, I can imagine a reasonable juror saying, after a trial, “Well, if I had known that, I would have found the guy guilty!” But has it ever happened that a (reasonable) juror (would have) said, after a trial, "Well, if I had known that, I would have found the guy innocent!

-FrL-

So do I and… I don’t.

I personally wish the “illegally obtained evidence” defence would just be legislated away. Punish overreaching police, but make that a separate case.
We should have a system based on full truth, not “balanced” partial truths.

All the time.

http://law.wisc.edu/rcid/caselaw/wisconsin/opinions/99-0498.htm

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=10th&navby=docket&no=042215

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=app\20001108\99-1737&invol=1

Notice that courts apply different standards to different types of objections and rulings, and that none of the standards matches your formulation exactly.

Thanks to all the GLMs/SDMB.

Regards,
Shodan

Thanks. I couldn’t look at the last one without a login, but the other two were certainly interesting and relevant.

I should have phrased my request differently: I was looking for cases where evidence was excluded which would have led a reasonable jury to find the defendant innocent, and where it was clear that the exclusion shouldn’t be the basis for a successful appeal.

In other words, I was looking for cases analogous to the ones in which evidence was excluded which would lead a reasonable jury to convict, where the exclusion was legally correct.

-FrL-