I think it’s more likely that the judge would either disqualify the juror or declare a mistrial.
I believe there are ways for jurors to send messages to the judge.
I was on the jury of a felony child abuse case where a number of expert witnesses described how the third-degree burns on the 14-month-old victim could not have been accidental, they had to have been inflicted by another. There was one juror who discounted anything the “pointy-headed intellectuals” had to say, and would not budge in the face of arguments from the 11 other jurors. After a few days of this we had to settle for a lesser non-felony charge that he would agree with. I expect that prosecutors have had much too much experience with this kind of juror, hence the flow of evidence over testimony.
Did he have a pointy head?
Well, the three of them looked pretty normal to me, but I guess I wasn’t looking at them with an unjaundiced eye, being rather pointy myself.
Simply awful.
It looks to me like the case is based on the defendant knowing that the girls were under-age. That means the jurors need to see the photos themselves, to see if the girls really do look obviously under-age by widely-accepted standards.
Since the defence seems to be disputing the testimony of an expert witness on the age of the girls in those photos, it’s good example of relying on expert witnesses being a pretty bad idea.
Am I the only one here who would be more intrigued than anything else by a case like this?
I mean, as unpleasant as it must be it can’t be THAT bad just looking at a photo. At least not compared to stumbling across something so horrible in real life. And in any case, what with child pornography being such a high media priority these days but with most of it being left to the imagination, surely most people would be more curious to know what kind of sick stuff actually goes on.
Some people are more sensitive than other people.
Most people, I would guess, looking at a photo of an adult man having sex with a seven year old girl, would blanch, feel awkward, perhaps queasy. They’d feel sympathy for the victim, disgust for the perpetrator. There might even be a very small element of instinctive sexual arousal, which they would immediately reject.
Most people, I think, would prefer not to look at any more.
But a few people, very sensitive, perhaps emotionally weak, might burst into tears, or vomit, or faint away. People are different; you can never know how someone will react.
Most people would look away quickly, too. The problem here is that the OP’s friend couldn’t look away, he had to keep looking at thousands of these images for days on end. That will get to just about anyone.
My friend was horrified. My friend is a retired Marine (30 years) who has been in combat. He’s seen some pretty bad stuff. He has said that this was really bad.
IMO, it was not being able to talk to anyone about it that was making him drink. He’s sober again. He hasn’t shared details about what he saw, and he probably won’t. He’s never shared details about combat either.
What’s there to be curious about? It’s not like we’ve never seen porn before. Just replace the sexy adult with a naked child doing the same thing. And shudder.
Boris, when I learned what trial my friend was on, I was intrigued as well. I knew the backstory (and the newspaper has posted the links now if you are interested). The defense was saying that the defendant was a victim of entrapment and that no children were harmed.
My friend went into the trial thinking that he was going to find some sex chats discussed. My friend isn’t an naive innocent, he knows about the internet. He did not know that he would see pics of children being abused.
There were 14 jurors on the trial. They had 2 extra people watching and hearing that stuff because they were pretty sure that some of them would drop out and they had to have at least 10 jurors to finish the trial.
Child porn isn’t something to be intrigued about. Its abuse and terrible and I’m sorry that my friend had to look at those pictures.
Part of the defendent’s defense was that he got the porn from webpages that said that all the kids were over 18. My friend said that it was very obvious that most of the kids in the pics were kids. Young kids.
A 19 year old woman can play a 16 year old if she dresses right. She can’t look 12.
Indeed. During jury selection, both the prosecution and defense would question the jury pool extensively about their ability to look at those kinds of pictures. There is a lot of nuance you can illicit from a prospective juror, particularly when they will have to view sensitive material, i.e., crime scene photos, child porn. Any juror who even let o. That they would be unwilling to view the evidence would be struck from the panel for cause (meaning the judge would strike them, and the lawyers wouldn’t have to waste their preemptive strikes).
If the entire case had been heard, and during deliberations a juror was refusing to look at evidence… AND the judge got wind of it… The judge would likely instruct the juror to view the evidence. If he refused, hopefully they seated an alternate juror, but if not, the judge would declare a mistrial for sure.
I am a defense attorney, by the way.
Ah a retired marine. It’s very possible that during his service he would have seen amongst many horrors, elements of child abuse etc - such is the nature of war zones. Is it possible he is sensitive to this because it triggers memories of bad stuff he has had the misfortune of witnessing in person himself?
I think what I’m struggling to understand is why it would cause a lot of people to become upset. I wouldn’t classify myself as a particularly unsensitive chap, but I’m perfectly capable of seeing images that depict graphic horror/violence without breaking down. I just don’t understand how this would generate a different reaction if it is merely like porn just “replace the sexy adult with a naked child doing the same thing”.
Because the child is being abused, which is sickening, while the sexy adult is, presumably, compliant.
Yes I understand that, and certainly agree that what is happening to the child is sickening. But I don’t see why looking at an image like that (assuming there is no graphic violence/blood/gore etc) should provoke upset any more than the thought of the abuse alone.
except it is the jurors duty to examine all evidence. Under your system a juror could sleep through the trial and then decide who was guilty based on who the prosecuter claims is guilty. After all the testimony is evidence and the juror could decide that he didn’t want to hear it because it was “too disturbing”
I’ve known 20 years olds who looked 12
Frankly the entire jury system is completely flawed and always has been. Imo, every criminal trial of significance should be before a panel of, say, 3 professionally qualified, highly trained judges who can cope with such evidence and have the correct experience to differentiate between fact and bending of the truth. Wishful thinking, and a costly implementation perhaps, but there is no price too high to pay for real justice and fair trials. As things stand, letting 12 randomers decide the truth based on facts and manipulations presented by barristers (of varying competence), is it any surprise when you hear of horrendous miscarriages of justice???