Me and a buddy were talking, and we came around to an idea that must have been discussed here before (but if so, I can’t find it). That is: why not let jurors ask questions during the trial?
In thinking about it further, I can think of several objections to the idea - which superficially seems quite sensible. Nevertheless:
o At the very least, I imagine that the questions would need to be put in writing and passed to the judge, rather than letting non-legally trained jurors interfere directly with the trial. Even so, the mechanics of this process could disrupt the trial procedings substantially.
o These questions would necessarily come before the jury has started deliberations. That might in some way be putting the cart before the horse.
o Any group of jurors is going to be a very mixed bag, with some jurors able to ask good questions, and others not so much. This itself would produce very different standards of justice among trials - possibly improving some trials while degrading overall justice.
I suppose the idea splits along the categories of criminal versus civil trials - each possibly with separate points and counterpoints. If necessary, we could split the thread.
I was on a federal jury and we were allowed to take notes in the courtroom and submit written questions once we had started deliberations.
As far as asking questions during the trial itself I can see some downsides to that - jurors asking questions that shouldn’t be asked, the whole “speedy trial” slowing to a crawl, etc. IANAL so I don’t know all the rules about what can and cannot be said in court but I’m sure a lawyer will be along to provide some insight.
I served on a jury (California civil court) where I was allowed to ask a question. We were told in advance that we could pass questions to the bailiff. During the testimony of one witness, I kept waiting for one of the attorneys to ask the crucial question that would determine the validity of what he was saying. When the testimony ended and no one had asked the question, I wrote it down and handed it to the bailiff, who passed it on to the judge, who then called the lawyers to the bench for a lengthy conference. Eventually it was determined that my question could be asked, and the judge read it to the witness. He answered, “No.” It was a little anti-climactic, but that “No” was enough to convince me to disregard the evidence given by that witness.
I’m glad I got the chance to learn the answer to my question, and I think that as long as the questions are routed through the judge to avoid any violations of legal rules or court procedure, it’s not a bad idea. Mine was the only question asked during the course of the six-week trial, so the disruption was pretty minimal.