Nope. It would be entirely improper for me to discuss the law in front of a member of the jury panel in a pending trial. It is the job of the court, not the parties or anyone else, to tell jurors what the law is.
If you were going on trial for murder, would you want the jurors sneaking away to ask strangers why witnesses swear an oath, or what “probable cause” means, or why all the participants in a robbery can be charged with murder if one of them kills somebody during the robbery? No? Same thing here.
Well obviously there are different standards for members of the bar (in the relevant state no less) than for members of the general public. Minty is probably the last person on this board who should answer this question.
Yep, they ended up taking 20 of us for a panel for a competancy hearing, and I was number 18. After they selected the 6 jurors, the rest of us were free to go with the thanks of the court.
I would like to know why one is prohibited from answeing this question. I understand a juror cannot discuss facts of the case, and I understand it would be ill-advised to counsel a juror on substantive law, but I’ve never seen a legal ethics rule that prohibits a lawyer from explaining general procedural aspects of jury trials.
Well, then let me add that it’s fairly obvious that if you had prior knowledge of the law governing such things, then the lawyers on both sides would be able to ask questions that discover this information is in you, and have the ability to dismiss you (with the thanks of the court) if they don’t like the fact that you have this pre-existing knowledge for some reason.
But if you get the knowledge from an outside source while you’re on a panel, you might have had a different answer to a question already asked, and you therefore must let the judge know that you gained outside knowledge that may have an impact on the lawyer’s opinion about you, so the lawyers can take this into account.
But IANAL, so I may be talking out of my nether regions.
Because while you’re a juror, it’s improper to discuss any aspect of the case with an outside party, even seemingly innocuous comments to one’s spouse. This is especially true when the comments concern the law that governs the case, be it procedural or substantive.
< nitpick > The OP wasn’t asking about the law which governed the case, but the law which governed courtroom procedures. Those are somewhat different matters. Knowing why he wasn’t allowed to take notes couldn’t have a bearing on his impartiality as a juror certainly. And it shouldn’t have an impact upon any aspect of his jury service unless he was going to get his nose so bent out of shape after hearing the answer that he sat there bearing a grudge against the court and the law, ignoring the proceedings because he was fuming over his inability to take notes. If that were the case, I’d imagine that Turek wouldn’t be fit for jury duty to begin with, because it’s not the behavior of someone of sound mind.
That said, no reason why Turek couldn’t Google and get an answer on his own. If it were important that jurors not ascertain what the state code says until after their jury service was completed, the jury should be given an instruction that once impaneled, they were not to attempt to access any legal information of any kind, be it at a library, online or by asking others. Presumably, Turek wouldn’t have asked and persisted in attempting to find out the answer if he’d been specifically told that such behavior was inappropriate.
I’ve never been on a jury, so I don’t know what kind of instructions are usually given, and whether this question would likely violate those instructions. I’m trying to figure out why minty felt that as a lawyer he could not respond, nor should anyone for that matter, and the mods took this seriously enough to lock the thread. Perhaps what you’re trying to say was that Turek was violating his duties as a juror, and that knowing this, minty could not aid him in the violation. I think there’s some ethics rule that says a lawyer should not discuss “the case” with something serving on a jury, but I hardly see how this procedural rule qualifies as part of “the case.” Surely, if he had not mentioned that he was actually serving on a jury we would be free to discuss it. I don’t see how this discussion could have any bearing on the outcome of the case whatsoever, which is what the rule is designed to protect.
By the way, I’m not asking just to nitpick – I’m taking the professional responsibility exam in a few weeks and feel I should understand the legal ethics rules involved.
Not really. All law is general until it is applied to a particular case. His question was seemingly harmless, but answering it would have involved a discussion of Texas law involving jury deliberation and juror misconduct, something that in my view should only be discussed with the presiding judge. Some judges would think this particular discussion was harmless and wouldn’t be a violation, and some judges would want minty disciplined if he dicussed any aspect of the law with a juror in their court in any way. The best bet if you’re a juror is don’t discuss any aspect of the trial with anyone until it’s over, and if you’re a lawyer, avoid jurors like the plague.
If he’d been impaneled, he would have received exactly that instruction. A juror should make no independent inquiry or research whatsoever, should not attempt to seek out any law regarding the case, and should not visit any location mentioned. It’s inevitable that someone is going to come into court with prior knowledge of the relevant law (especially when lawyers get summoned to jury duty); that person should attempt to put their knowledge or belief as to the state of the law aside in favor of the judge’s instructions concerning the law, and should not expalin the law to other jurors beyond what the judge has said.
This concept of jury-as-tabula-rasa, while open to debate, is one of the most important foundations of the the common law. I’ve never been sure I buy it, and indeed continental systems seem to work OK without it, but it’s difficult to mess about with it when you have no idea what doing so might do to the rest of the edifice.
I simply do not understand this whatsoever. The discussion seems to boil down to “lawyers expect jurors to be completely ignorant of the law, and educating yourself on even minor points of the law will screw the lawyers”. WHAT? Do civics classes taint the jury process, or only if you take a civics class while being considered for a jury?
Of course, I’m expecting the law and legal ethics to make sense, and that’s probably my first mistake.
Again, to repeat, I wasn’t on a jury. I’m not even sure I’d been impaneled, because no one has confirmed my definition of that term. I’d never seen the judge, the courtroom, the defendant, or, for that matter, ANYTHING other than the central jury room.
I’d received a summons in the mail, I’d sat in a chair for 3 hours, I’d seen a short orientation slide show, and my name had been called, but I’d never left the central jury room. Other than that, I was the exact same person with the exact same prejudices, knowledge, and ideas as I had 24 hours prior.
I still feel I in no way violated ANY ethics of a juror or encouraged anyone to violate their professional ethics by posing my question here.
Here in Maricopa county, if not the whole state, you are not only allowed, but encouraged to take notes. The bailiff gives you about ten half sheets stapled together and a pencil when you enter the jury box. You turn the pages in at the end of the day (no home study) and, after a verdict is reached, they are collected one last time and destroyed.
Another odd item, is after the cross examination, the jurors can ask questions of the witness via the judge. You submit the written questions, the judge looks them over, rejecting some, and putting the rest to the witness if he approves. Never seen anything like it before I got here.
No, of course that’s fine. Nobody expects you to come into court completely divorced of every bit of common sense you’ve gained in life. The good and common sense of jurors is the basis of the jury system. Nobody wants you to be ignorant. Your civics class is a boon to your understanding of your role as a juror.
The thing is, nobody should interfere with your understanding of your role as a juror as it pertains to this trial. Ten different civics teachers will instruct you in ten different manners as to what the role of a juror in the American judicial system is, and all may show remarkable insight. As a juror, though, it’s requested that you put that prior knowledge (or concurrently gained knowledge) aside in favor of the judge’s instructions. A civic instructor giving you general information as to the jury system is different from actively seeking out specific information concerning a judge’s instruction in a specific trial.
Turek, I don’t feel that you have violated any ethics of a juror or encouraged anyone else to violate their professional ethics either, especially in light of the fact that your question was not in response to an instruction in a trial you were currently sitting on, but merely as to your past experience. minty didn’t want to answer your question due to an abundance of caution; addressing any potential juror as to the law in the case they may sit on is a dicey proposition, even if as to a minor point. Jury sequestration is sacrosanct to the lawyer type. So don’t worry, nobody’s blamin’ ya. Quite the opposite; you’re doing your civic duty, citizen!
Much as we lawyers like keeping the public ignorant it really doesn’t go as far as civics classes. The general idea is that we want jurors to assess the facts based only on what goes on inside the courtroom. Basic civics? Of course. It’s expected that people know that, say, killing someone is usually illegal. But let’s say that the defendant claims self-defense. We want people to judge that defense based on what the law actually is, not on what they see on TV, not on what they might have read about after that big trial ten years ago, and not even based on what they might have learned in law school, if they’re lawyers. (Here in New York lawyers may now serve on juries.) Jurors must base their decision solely on what the judge tells them the law is - not their independent research or knowledge, which may be flawed. Is it a little silly? Maybe. But remember, as we often find on this board, a little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing*. Remember that jury deliberations are (usually) kept absolutely secret. If the jury makes a mistake because they’ve independently come up with a wrong interpretation of the law, that mistake can’t be corrected. But if the judge makes a mistake in instructing the jury about the law, we can correct that on appeal because those instructions are part of the record.
This is part of what I was alluding to in my prior post. There’s a whole interconnecting structure that appears to depend, at least in part, on keeping the jury ignorant. (I haven’t even addressed the exclusionary rule! A whole second discussion could ensue from that…) We tinker with that structure at our peril.
And I know I’m coming dangerously close to resembling that remark! I’m hoping for all of us that minty sees this thread, because I certainly understand the frustration. I’m (a) not a litigator and (b) not admitted in Texas, so I really can’t offer more information than this.
Ok, I think we’re all getting a little of topic, and as the OP, hey, if anyone has a right to declare that we’re off topic, it’s me. I’m guilty of a little self-hijacking myself (will that make me go blind?) and for that I’ve sentanced myself to 60 lashes with a wet bikini string by a supermodel of my choosing.
Whether or not we agree with Minty Green’s choice to not disclose things to me because of my potential role as a juror is a moot point. It was his choice to make, and he made it based on his interpretation of the situation and his personal and professional code of ethics. Debating if his decision was correct is a) pointless, 2) not germane to the OP, c) kinda rude to Minty, and 4) not in the spirit of this forum.
So, I’d like to reiterated the OP, in the hopes that Minty or someone equally as knowledgable will be able to shed some light on the subject: Why is it, each time I’ve served as a juror in the great state of Texas, I’ve been instructed that I may not take notes?
I’m bumping this because I don’t think we ever got a complete answer to Turek’s question or to the hijack about legal ethics.
By the way, I don’t see why it’s pointless, rude, or not in the spirit of the forum to discuss a question of legal ethics when it was raised in the discussion. Yeah, it’s a bit of a hijack, but it would be pointless to start a new thread about it, if it can be answered easily here.
it really doesn’t go as far as civics classes. The general idea is that we want jurors to assess the facts based only on what goes on inside the courtroom. Basic civics? Of course. It’s expected that people know that, say, killing someone is usually illegal. But let’s say that the defendant claims self-defense. We want people to judge that defense based on what the law actually is, not on what they see on TV, not on what they might have read about after that big trial ten years ago, and not even based on what they might have learned in law school, if they’re lawyers. (Here in New York lawyers may now serve on juries.) Jurors must base their decision solely on what the judge tells them the law is - not their independent research or knowledge, which may be flawed. Is it a little silly? Maybe. But remember, as we often find on this board, a little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing*. Remember that jury deliberations are (usually) kept absolutely secret. If the jury makes a mistake because they’ve independently come up with a wrong interpretation of the law, that mistake can’t be corrected. But if the judge makes a mistake in instructing the jury about the law, we can correct that on appeal because those instructions are part of the record.
I’m guilty of a little self-hijacking myself (will that make me go blind?) and for that I’ve sentanced myself to 60 lashes with a wet bikini string by a supermodel of my choosing.