Strange juror behavior

[KneadToKnow]

@Gala Matrix Fire

Did you read the recent General Questions threadabout a juror who knew Spanish giving his own interpretation of a witness’s testimony? Because based on what lawyers were saying in that thread, it sounds like a jerk could argue that you jurors based your decision on evidence not presented in court, i.e., your own shoe prints.

Personally, I think you did the right thing. But I’m not a lawyer.

Just curious … what right thing do you think I did?

[Gala_Matrix_Fire]

@KneadToKnow

Just curious … what right thing do you think I did?

Well, how did you know that the photograph of the wet shoe print matched your foreman’s shoe print? Looked at his shoe, right?

one of the big things in the jury instructions was that we jurors were not to use our own personal knowledge to inform our decisions in the jury room, and especially not to use that knowledge to sway other jurors.

Jurors are supposed to be using the testimony from the trial, and that alone.

Imagine a juror who lives near the scene of the crime that’s the subject of trial. One night he goes home and measures the distance between where the witness said he was and what the witness says he saw. The next day he comes back to the jury and announces, “It’s 100 feet from where Smith said he was standing to where Jones was when he entered the store, so no way could Smith have seen that little gun in Jones’ hand.”

That’s improper. The jury can only consider facts they learn at trial.

[KneadToKnow]

@Gala Matrix Fire

Well, how did you know that the photograph of the wet shoe print matched your foreman’s shoe print? Looked at his shoe, right?

Oh, okay. I thought you had jumped to a conclusion about the verdict.