Comment on When a judge tells the jury to ‘forget XYZ,’ how can the jury possibly do that?
kibblebits@quokk.au 1 day ago
They don’t. But later in deliberations they cannot see it in a transcript. They are supposed to base everything on the evidence they have.
So, if something is said that absolutely incriminates a person, but it’s thrown out on a technicality and little evidence remains… technically they should be not guilty.
Conversely, if someone is being railroaded for a crime and the only evidence placing them half way across the world at the time is somehow thrown out…. They’d have to find them guilty.
Could you? I could not.
MartianSands@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
They’d be supposed to, but they certainly don’t have to. Nobody can actually tell the jury what to decide, or there’d be no point in a jury
kibblebits@quokk.au 1 day ago
They have to. I mean legally they cannot consider that evidence. If they keep bringing it up in jury deliberations, and that gets reported, it would be a mistrial.
However, you’re right in that it cannot be erased from a person’s mind… the phrase I’ve heard used is “ringing the bell” which is when a lawyer might mention a persons prior convictions, but that gets objected to and stricken. But the bell rung and the jury knows.
MartianSands@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
No, there’s still a fundamental disconnect there.
The law may say they have to, but they don’t actually have to. The difference is important
kibblebits@quokk.au 1 day ago
If they don’t, and they say they aren’t, it is a mistrial.
If they don’t, and they keep their mouth shut, then no one knows.
Connected.