I’m not going to quote any of it; what it comes down to is that there’s a guy on trial for robbing a convenience store and there’s images of someone who looks just like him doing it. He was found nearby with money on him and so on and so forth. The thing is, one of the jurors was a seamstress and noticed that the seams on the shirt the guy was wearing when he was caught don’t match the seams on the shirt captured on still pictures taken of the robbery. That’s the reason the accused was acquitted.
Ignoring everything about how high-resolution a security camera is going to be and so on, assume this evidence was not brought up during trial. Would the jury legally be allowed to acquit based on this evidence?
I was on a jury once, and we were carefully instructed not to try to solve the crime ourselves. We were told not to apply special knowledge we might have, but to base our decision solely on the evidence presented.
It sounds like a “Twelve Angry Men” fantasy to me. Or just a rogue juror.
All of the above posters, even though contradictory, are correct. A jury is not supposed to bring in outside evidence or special knowledge into the deliberations room, but if one does and the jury acquits, nobody can ever do anything about it.
Isn’t the principle that the jury is supposed to judge the evidence. The seamstress did and the evidence was found wanting. It seems to me that that is exactly the kind of judgment a jury is supposed to make.
I think the legal response here is that the prosecution was not able to rebut the evidence, as it didn’t get to see it. It breaks the fundamental rule of the adversarial system we have, which is that both sides get to use the same facts to build their respective cases.
As others have observed, the jury has the power to base their decision on virtually anything.
However, there are grounds that are considered improper.
This would not be one. While the seamstress’ occupation may have been what made her notice it, the difference in shirts does not need an expert to explain it – once she pointed it out, every member of the jury could see for themselves that they did not match.
The story sounds made-up to me for a variety of reasons, but as a hypo to explore proper and improper jury influences, it’s fine, and the observation from the juror is proper.
And both sides did. The shirt was in evidence, and the pictures were in evidence.
Here’s the difference between proper and improper…if the seamstress had said, “Guys, I know fabric, and this kind of fabric, when photographed, has a bluish tint on the film. The pictures don’t show that tint, so this isn’t the same shirt,” then THAT would be improper. The seamstress would be saying, in effect, take my word as an expert.
Here, any member of the jury could have notice the peats in the picture did not match the pleats on the shirt. While the seamstress noticed because of her occupation, she didn’t ask anyone to take her word – she showed each member the mismatch. The jury is entitled to act on that kind of information.
But if they brought in outside evidence or special knowledge to convict, it would be grounds to set aside the verdict and do a re-trial, right? (Though of course the defense would obviously need to have proof this happened)
The movie and the still pictures were both introduced into evidence. And nobody would have batted an eye if one of the jurors voted to acquit based on “that doesn’t look like the same guy”. How is “that doesn’t look like the same shirt the guy is wearing” any less valid?
What should a juror do, in that instance? It seems improper to withhold exonerating information, but I can see why a judge wouldn’t want jurors acting as expert witnesses, either.
No, that’s okay. Each juror brings their own experience and background to the jury room. But the line is drawn where one juror basically testifies to facts that the other jurors don’t know and can’t see for themselves.
Without communicating this information to the other jury members, the juror should send a note to the judge, saying s/he can longer follow the judge’s instructions to judge the case only on the evidence presented.
This should cause the judge to question the juror with both lawyers present, and at that point the juror can explain the blue tint issue. Now the defense knows it and is equipped to deal with the issue as best they can. The judge can seat an alternate juror (if there is one), ask both sides if they’ll agree to proceed with fewer than the statutory number of jurors, or declare a mistrial.
Jurors are also allowed to ask to have evidence explained aren’t they? (I know not in "open court). But if some of the testimony like the blue tint thingy conflicts with their area of expertise, couldn’t they send a note to the judge highlighting that?