Do jurors have access to the transcript? If not, I think notes could be helpful in complicated cases. The only jury I’ve served on was a slip 'n fall case, it wasn’t too complicated. I suppose one drawback would be the chance of missing something while you were busy taking notes.
While note taking by a jury member may or may not be permitted, I cannot fathom why people in the gallery, particularly in a traffic court setting (usually not a typical formal courtroom) cannot write.
Yes, that. The other usual objections are that other jurors might rely too much during deliberations on the notes of somebody who took a lot of them (whether or not they were accurate), or that they might stubbornly favor their own notes even if a fellow juror (accurately) remembers something differently, or that some jurors might feel they ought to take notes, whether or not they really needed them.
I give instructions to address each of these concerns. IMHO if jurors want to take notes and it would aid them in their service, they should be permitted to do so.
In the great majority of cases, jurors do not have access to the trial transcript, which might not be prepared until months later, if ever.
tumbleddown, I agree with you.
The courts I’ve been in (only a few, really) permit anyone to observe most trials in progress. You can take notes or draw, or whatever, but can’t use a camera or engage in leisure activities such as knitting or reading a book, or sleeping. The reason provided is that an open trial is a public matter and as such may be attended by anyone with interest. However, they are not a place for just hanging out or as a substitute dwelling, etc. Obviously you can’t do anything that disrupts the procedings.
When I was on grand jury duty last summer the court supervisor told us that if we wanted to visit any of the petit jury trials just go to the appropriate courtroom and walk in. He said if anyone asked you why you were there just to say you wanted to observe. I did exactly that one day and the gatekeepers were very friendly and seemed pleased someone was doing that. I saw newspaper reporters in there taking notes and drawing sketches.
Maybe they’re sitting in court and not allowed to read the thread.
In a democratic society, the courts are and should be open to all, except in extraordinary circumstances. But a judge has broad latitude to run her courtroom as she sees fit, including limiting spectators from doing things which (even irrationally) annoy her.
I did a project on courtroom language at the local magistrate’s court. I was allowed to write and draw, but not to record anything. Every time I went, either the magistrate or an attorney would ask me what I was doing, and they were always perfectly happy with my explanation.
We routinely record our courtroom proceedings, and if someone asked to make his own recording, I would let him. No problem.
Right. The judge is balancing two fundamental principles of the US Constitution: No secret trials, and yet trials which uphold due process. People could do all kinds of things in the court room which could jeopardize due process. Then it really screws things up, because it’s incumbent upon the judge to call a mistrial, or whatever.
My time on jury duty, the judge expected you to listen to the voir dire questions put to the jurors in front of you - he’d generally start off by asking if you fell in any of the categories/exceptions already discussed.
So how are you with Counsel awaiting case to be called who are busy prepping like crazy.
When I visited the House of Lords, it was explicitly stated that there was to be NO READING apart from the little agenda paper. It is considered disrespectful to one’s betters.
Mme. Defarge ruined it for all of us.
The House of Lords Judicial Committee? Or the House of Lords in general? For the former; that is not true, if you have a reason, you can and do; as a pupil I was on various occassions asked to go observe the proceedings and make notes on cases of interests to us and secondly during cases I was involved in; I was busy with the reference books and nearly 100% of the time.
And as a member of the public you could usually get away with it by being discreet.
This was the House of Lords in Parliament in general. They were condemning the bombings in Madrid that morning (This was 3/11/04) and discussing the price of milk. But there were some gentlemen there who enforced the respectful behavior rules.
Some judges in the UK have started allowing journalists to tweet updates from court. I’m particularly thinking of the recent Julian Assange case.
If they’re not disruptive, I have no problem with it. It’s not uncommon to have counsel with law books, papers, notebooks, etc. that they’re looking at. Doesn’t bother me. As far as I know, no one’s tweeted in my presence in court yet, but again, it wouldn’t bother me if it happened (unless they were actually speaking to me at the time, or were obviously distracted by it).
Short answer: Many judges are assholes.
Our local juvenile court judge has many rules for her courtroom, no talking (understandable) no writing, no reading, no cell phones (again, understandable) no pants without belts, no purses, no hats, no shorts, no sleeveless shirts, no sunglasses, and no bare midriffs (male or female) to name a few. It’s quite a shock to some people who find themselves in her court.
When I did jury duty last summer, knitting needles of any sort were not allowed in the courthouse. I knew metal needles would not be allowed but I had thought bamboo needles might be…no dice. No sharp pointy things of any type. Drove me nuts, as I could have gotten a lot of knitting done during those lengthy breaks during the three week trial I was on. Note to self…learn to crochet before next jury duty summons…