• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Jurors consulted dictionary; sex abuse convictions thrown out

  • Thread starter Thread starter WW
  • Start date Start date
ok...the doctors said the children had this disease, the jurors wanted to know what it was. if the defense lawyers think the jurors made their decision because of a definition, they're idiots. but i'm sure they dont really think that and are just looking for a loophole.
 
So what would have happened if there was a doctor in the jury and someone asked him what it meant?



<< Whited's lawyers objected, saying juries should consider only evidence before them. >>


So much for the pursuit of truth
 
I think that's the first conviction I've ever seen thrown out because the juries were, for lack of a better term, up to snuff on the medical terms used.
 
The judge presiding over that trial should be fired... I don't know how you fire a judge, but he deserves it.
 
Yeah its stupid, but its going to be a moot point. He's not being set free, he just gets a new trial, where he will be found guilty again.
 
Yup. They're all supposed to follow the rules: judge, jury, lawyers, everybody. It's annoying and expensive to have a new trial, but that's what they need here. The only exception is acquittal...no need to even have a reason.
 
I've oftentimes read of this situation before....

I never have been able to understand how a judge is able to forbid jurors from consulting
a dictionary :disgust: :|
 
While it's horrible that a sex offender has been set free, the jurors as well as the court attendant who provided them with the dictionary should have known better. I've sat on jury panels before and the judge always emphatically commands the jury before releasing them to deliberation that they are NOT to consider any other documents, evidence, etc. OTHER than what has been given to them during the trial.

Once when we wished to have a particular law clarified we couldn't just consult a law book or anything. They had to call EVERYONE back into the courtroom just so the judge could read the law to us again. Then we were sent back to continue deliberations.

So the jury and the attendant are the one's at fault for this guy going free. Not the judge or the lawyers.

At least there is going to be another trial and he will probably get convicted in that one.
 


<< The members of a jury aren't even supposed to think. >>



Their thinking is supposed to be guided by the evidence presented to them by the trial lawyers. It's not the job of a jury to corroborate the prosecutions case or provide new evidence.
 
Their thinking is supposed to be guided by the evidence presented to them by the trial lawyers. It's not the job of a jury to corroborate the prosecutions case or provide new evidence.

I'm sorry but I must respectfuly disagree! I have been on two jury's myself and regardless of what the judge or any lawyers say looking up a word in the dictionary is not presenting new evidence, it is simply trying to be as informed as possible so as to make your best decision based on the evidence. It's precisely this kind of legal nitpicking that has made a mockery of our justice system.:frown:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top