Like I said, the court can make the finding itself as a matter of law (or should be able to), or–alternatively–the other party could be subpoenaed or held in contempt but no judgment given at that time, or the court could investigate the reason for the absence and act on its own discretion, or any number of other alternatives that could be provided for within the law. (I’m not claiming any of these are currently possible, but if not, the law should perhaps be amended.)
What can’t happen is that I as a jury member make a judgment based on the facts when I know that I don’t have all the facts. I’m being asked to do something impossible–to evaluate the evidence presented by one side when there is no competing evidence against which it weigh it. That doesn’t mean the evidence presented is automatically correct; it means there is nothing for a jury to decide. For me to abide by the judge’s instructions and issue a decision anyway would be dishonest and a violation of my integrity.
It depends. Is the “I can’t serve” comment in response to the one side’s absence, or the apparently arbitrary and caprcious firing of the juror?
I agree, why the side failed to appear is not relevant to the case. However, if a juror asks an honest layman question and the result is apparent intimidation, a jury may react to being bullied by pushing back.
Sometimes judges can be dicks. sometimes, their actions are entirely justified. Context is everything.
We’ve had juries acquit in the UK simply because they didn’t agree with the law the guy was prosecuted under. Jury nullification I think it’s called. Could that happen in the US?
I agree with this. If the property in question was a 4500 sq. foot house with a 4 acre lot located in the most desirable area of town, and the expert testified that he thought the value of the property was $4.23, then surely a jury can disbelieve the witness entirely.
Yes. But as Bricker correctly points out, the seamstress could offer knowledge that would be readily apparent to the jury. “See how the shirt is identical, right down to the stitching!!!” would not be reversible error because the lay jurors could see that for themselves.
If you had an engineer doing complex calculus on the chalk board and asking jurors to take his word for it, that may well be reversible error. A lot of the talk in the jury room comes out. When a defendant is convicted, the attorney usually tries to interview jurors and get the story about what happened in deliberations. The jurors have no obligation to talk, but usually a few want to talk.
Yeah, but the legal profession in most places is very hostile to the idea (especially judges); which might explain the Judge’s sudden dismissal of the juror.
Especially if the one side’s lawyer whispers to him “nobody’s here from the other side, we can say anything. Lowball it…!”
..but notice these examples are so patently out of line with “common sense” that the expert witness can be obviously disbelieved. I guess the real question comes up when he estimate is a bit low but believeable. If one juror sells real estate, he can’t tell the others “IMHO that is a low number” as an expert. The others would have to figure this out without his help.
That was my question. Were the jurors even allowed to discuss this situation? What happened if they said “no your honor, we choose a different price”? What happens if the judge does not allow them to retire and discuss?
As we’ve seen from many other lawsuits, judges and appeals can change what a jury decides in terms of money; but just that override could become grounds for appeal, I imagine.
If the one side fails to appear, are there not early submissions at the beginning of the case in court documents, or does that side have to be there for that submission to be presented?
I think that most jurisdictions have the concept of a directed verdict. In some cases, the judge himself will enter a verdict if no material dispute arises because a witness didn’t show up or for other reasons. But it used to be (and still may be in some cases) that a judge can instruct a civil jury to do something. “Go back there and decide that this property is worth $200k” and when the jury comes back with $220k, the judge can tell them they didn’t do as directed. If the expert testified to an absurd amount, that would likely raise enough doubt that a judge wouldn’t direct the verdict and jurors would be free to apply common sense.
Obviously a judge can’t order a conviction in a criminal trial, but they still enjoy this latitude in civil trials, but usually don’t go through the formalities unless requested. I don’t have a cite, but I believe courts have ruled that this amounts to a jury trial when the judge simply tells the jury what to do as a matter of law.
I believe (any lawyers correct me if I’m wrong) that in this sort of case, the judge has made a ruling to allow the case to proceed in one party’s absence before the jury was even involved and that ruling would be based on such issues as whether the judge was satisfied that the absent party received proper notice of the trial, whether the absent party had contacted the court and requested an adjournment, whether there was good cause to request that adjournment , etc It’s unlikely a jury would ever know why a party didn’t show up - if someone contacted the court because the person was hospitalized, it wouldn’t get to the jury and if they just didn’t bother to show up no one knows why.
Still, if a juror asks an innocent and obvious question, is it appropriate for the judge to go all Trump on him? If that doesn’t scream intimidation, I don’t know what does.
Problem is, that means that the law is at odds with morality, and, thus, all moral people have to do what they can to contradict it. It’s my moral duty as a juror to make sure that justice is actually served. This creates a fundamental lack of trust between the jurors and the judge, because one has to secretly hold that the judge is wrong rather than declare it.
Then again, all of this comes from the lack of restraint on judge’s powers in the first place. This “absolute control of the courtroom” is just the same type of tyranny that our nation was formed to prevent. Especially if, as I understand it, if that juror objected to the judge, he could have been indefinitely imprisoned for contempt of court.
It’s stuff like this that makes me disinclined to follow legal principles at all if I can not get caught. Only the ones that align with my morality will be followed. Because of this, I am much more inclined towards jury nullification that I would ever have been otherwise.
I don’t understand how all these supposedly bright legal minds don’t see this obvious result–make things unfair, and people will be disinclined to do what you want.
Even the ones where a juror can voice their concern aren’t quite moral because there’s an element of being kicked out if you ask the wrong question. Honestly, juror questions should be anonymous.