When a judge tells the jury to ‘forget XYZ,’ how can the jury possibly do that?

Comments

• YoFrodo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Its more that when deliberating the jurors just consciously disregard that info. However, everyone knows that this is a request at best. What jurors do or do not consider when they are deliberating will vary.

  source

  • danc4498@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    If they openly talk about something they were told not to talk about, could that have any repercussions?

    source

    • FenrirIII@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Their discussions are usually confidential and between them. The lead jurist should remind people not to use that component when deliberating. Unless someone narcs to the judge, there’s no real mechanism to stop them from talking

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• disregardable@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Keep in mind that statement is not allowed for a reason. Eg. One time a prosecutor implied that the defendant was in a gang because they were wearing a shirt with the color red. He wasn’t in a gang. If he was, the prosecutor would’ve had actual evidence. It’s literally just a manipulation tactic you to try to get a conviction, and that’s why it was objected to.

  source

  • AmidFuror@fedia.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Username checks out.

    source

    • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Disregarded. Op should be ashamed, impugning a cow’s dignity like that. I bet that cow never ran drugs in its life

      source
  • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    It could also, however, be legitimate evidence that proves guilt, but that was obtained through illegal means and therefore is inadmissible in court.

    source
• Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  If it was a jury of my peers no one would remember much on the first place.

  source

  • bizarroland@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    For real, even short jury trials are typically a couple of days long, and there will typically be tens, if not hundreds, of things objected to during the course of the trial.

    You would have to have a very good memory to remember a specific objection out of the pile.

    source

    • RustyShackleford@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      This is precisely why I detest being a juror. There’s always one juror questioning my memory. Consequently, I follow by repeating the last five minutes of the conversation to prove it. Subsequently, someone acts like it’s a gift, but it’s akin to living in my own personal hell. Having to recall almost everything for decades. It’s almost impossible to ever let things go.

      source
    • Davel23@fedia.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      You've been watching too much TV.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Huh?

    source

    • Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Exactly

      source
• Canonical_Warlock@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  When I was on the hiring team at work, I googled an applicant and discovered that they were arrested in the 90s for filming themself having sex with a cow. That is increadibly offputting but they had a clean record in the 30 years since then and even if they didn’t it was in no way applicable to the job in question so I simply disregarded that fact. Obviously I still knew they fucked a cow but I simply didn’t consiously factor it into the hiring decision. They did get the job btw.

  I imagine it is the same for a jury. Obviously the jury can’t literally forget something that was said but they can consiously choose to disregard it when it comes to their final decision. Obviously it’s not perfect because any information admissable or otherwise will subconsciously influence someones verdict but if they try to actively ignore that info then it is better than nothing.

  source

  • bcgm3@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    If a jury of my peers finds me guilty of any crime, no matter how obvious it is that I did it, and I then find out they’re all a bunch of cow fuckers, I will be filing for an appeal.

    I’m sorry if I missed the point of this story, it was a long day for me.

    source
  • vrek@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    As long as you don’t work with cows it shouldn’t matter, Now if it a job on a dairy farm…

    source
  • neidu3@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Gotta admire the dedication of producing homemade beastiality porn in the 60s with a camera that must’ve weighed a ton. Hired!

    source

    • Flax_vert@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      That’s not admirable…

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Did they know you knew they fucked a cow? I hope you used that as leverage in every confrontation with them.

    source
• 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.

  source

  • 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

    source

    • 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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  First the direct answer: you can’t.

  Some more context: there’s usually ways to deal with this issue. There’s voir dire for example, where you can do a practice run of the questions and answers for a specific witness, or the party can profer (idk if it’s spelled correctly) the testimony, giving the judge a general idea of the direct or cross-examination.

  This usually only happens if something goes wrong. It can be things like the lawyer overstepping a boundary by accident, but it’s very frowned upon and they can be admonished and sanctioned by the judge.

  For why to do about the “can’t put the shit back in the horse”, usually the judge gives the jury an admonishment and maybe even a curative instruction right before deliberation, but best case scenario it’s been handled in advance and doesn’t even happen.

  source
• akunohana@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  I always thought they got one of these in the room where they deliberate.

  VFVKGgk0roDD0UW.jpg

  source
• hypeerror@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  I was on a jury for a 3 week trial last winter. In almost every case the attorneys go to a side bar before anything is brought up. The only situation we had where we were asked to ignore something were two incomplete questions regarding a business relationship that later turned out to be completely inconsequential to the questions at hand.

  source
• AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  As individuals, they can’t. But as a group making a decision through verbal discussion, they can exclude the information from the deliberative process. At least to their own satisfaction, they need to construct a justification for their verdict that doesn’t rely on the forbidden evidence.

  source
• Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  It's not forgotten, that's why lawyers engineer those moments.

  But it's supposed to be rationally disregarded.

  source
• msokiovt@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  It’s a manipulation tactic by either a judge or a shady lawyer to get the result they want. It’s an old trick that was used for centuries.

  source
• FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Well it means that officially, they’re not supposed to consider it a factor in their decision making. But you’re right that it’s not really possible to completely erase the influence on their minds. Even if they try to completely disregard it, it will still have an impact on their thoughts

  source