A news report about a local trial made me think of the following question.
Say, during a jury trial, one side enters into evidence visual exhibits, like photos or a videotape. For whatever reason, a juror finds the images so unpleasant or unseemly that he/she essentially chooses not to look at them. I can imagine such a scenario might occur with grusome crime scene photos or images that are very sexually explicit. In my hypothetical, I don’t imagine the squeemish juror making a big announcement or anything, or asking to be excused. I imagine him/her simply turning away or closing his/her eyes while the images are being shown or passed around, but otherwise participating normally in his/her role as a juror.
Is this behavior the juror’s perogative? Or can the judge or one of the lawyers compel the juror to look at the images? Might one side even have grounds for a mistrial if it could be shown that one or more of the jurors refused to observe the visual evidence?
There was an article in the news recently (Chicago gang rape trial) where the judge was trying to force *the girl who was raped * on tape to view the rape in the courtroom (is this the case you’re referring to?). She got indignant and refused. The judge finally conceded to let her avert her eyes during the airing of the video.
Now I can understand the jurors being forced, so that they can see and assess the evidence. But what possible use would there be in forcing the victim to watch the rape?
A VERY prominent JUDGE slept through about 15 minutes of the proceeding before THE COURT and the other judges did nothing about it.
Presumably The Judge had already come to their own decision and wasn’t about to be swayed by enny lawyar tawk! :rolleyes:
Walloon:
I assume that when you wrote, “Yes to all of your questions,” you meant the last two of my three – and that it is not the juoror’s perogative to look away, yes?
Kalhoun:
Actually, no, my question was not prompted by the Chicago trial you mentioned. I never heard of it. But it certainly is a fascinating story. Thanks for posting about it.
Spingears:
Yes, yes, I read all about that in the OTHER thread. Get it, the OTHER thread?
In some courts, it is the juror’s prerogative to look away, is what I am saying. Not as an official, written policy. Just that individual judges have a lot of control over what happens in their courtrooms. What you can get away with in one court wouldn’t be allowed in the courtroom next door.
Kalhoun, from what I recall in my reading about this, the defense wanted to question her about specific portions of the videotape - which would mean she would have to see it. Defense tried to get the judge to MAKE her watch it to address these specific scenes - IIRC there were three or four specific portions he wanted to question her on - and he (judge) was at one point threatening her with contempt if she didn’t, but then he changed his mind. It’s a moot point - this dude was acquitted too.
SHUT. UP. He was acquitted? I haven’t heard the outcome until now. Wow. I need to follow up on that and check out the details. He sure looked guilty from the news coverage (though I know that’s certainly nothing to base a decision on).
If you’re referring to the Supreme Court and Justice Ginsburg, then the answer is that the Justices are not frequently swayed by Oral arguments. Thats not the point. The orals are more to present additional information that might not be included in briefs, or to reinforce said information. Although none would ever admit it, I imagine most of them did indeed already have their minds made up. That shouldn’t come as any suprise. You think anyone is ever swayed by presentations and speeches by members of Congress on the floor of their respective houses?
The jury said that the video tape, which had been entered by prosecutors, had too many points where the girl seemed to give consent. That the boys certainly had done something wrong - but that rape was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
One juror was quoted today as saying that the family should definitely file a civil case as those requirements aren’t nearly as stringent as the criminal case.
It’s largely in the judge’s discretion. If a prosecutor or defense counsel brings to the court’s attention that a witness is not looking at something which all jurors are expected to look at, the judge can order the juror to do so. If the juror refuses and the judge thinks it’s important enough, the juror can be removed and an alternate juror brought in.
In any event, smart trial lawyers and judges will tell prospective jurors during voir dire (jury selection) that there may be shocking or gruesome photos or video evidence. Those who plausibly say they would be too disturbed by such evidence to fairly and impartially serve as jurors will typically be excused. There’s always going to be another, less-stressful case which they can then hear.