When juries deliberate, they discuss their reasons for thinking this or that. Basically, by telling the jury to disregard something, the judge is saying that this shouldn't be included in the decision-making process.
Of course people can't just take things out of their heads, and of course the legal representatives take advantage of that fact.
When I served on a jury, the judge had us leave the courtroom multiple times. Once the trial was over, the judge told us what was being discussed when we left the room, and the reason the information had been excluded from testimony during the trial.
Had the DA tried to introduce this information while the jury was in the room it probably would have made it more difficult for us to come to the same verdict. I imagine that if the DA tried to do this often enough, it could lead to a mistrial and possible disciplinary action.
I imagine that if the DA tried to do this often enough, it could lead to a mistrial and possible disciplinary action.
You are 100% that at some point they would have been reprimanded by the judge and other counsel would have at least asked for a mistrial, although disciplinary action is very much more rare, as the bar reserves it for the more outrageous ethical misconduct like with Tom Girardi or Alex Murdough (not sure about spelling).
It actually happens a lot that counsel does improper stuff, but usually they keep it to a minimum. But it also heavily depends on how strict the judge is.
In the end, every trial is a new constellation with different dynamics and you never know what will happen, as is custom with juries as well.
But yeah to get back to get on topic, the jury is the one deciding and the judge is trying to make sure the jury only decides on the facts. Deciding what facts is trying to keep the trial fair to both parties. And making jurors disregard testimony is done in the hopes the jury will try to ignore it or at least not consider it for their decision.
And what you are saying makes it clear that it definitely works to some degree. I would love to know how well it works, but that is a different question, although we can assume it works reasonably well considering we're still doing it and these things are researched in the form of jury experiments every once in a while.
I thought that in US law, jury didn't have to explain their verdict? (I believe the whole "object" is an US law thing)
They don’t have to explain it to the judge but they’re discussing it with each other and have come to a consensus (presumably with reasons for that consensus). As far as I know.
Yeah; when on a jury, we had it all written down and had a big flow chart on a white board with stuff crossed off that we had determined wasn’t actually relevant for one reason or another. When the trial was over, all the paper got shredded and the whiteboard thoroughly scrubbed, but we needed all that information while deliberating.
Context. Usually if the jury is around during evidentiary objections it's because a witness is on the stand and what's being objected to is the addition to witness testimony to the transcript of the hearing. When the jury goes into deliberations they can ask for the transcript to be read back to them. That transcript is the jury's memory and why we're able to work around a standard of "reasonable" doubt.
I've been on a jury once. In that particular case, there were a couple jurors who took it upon themselves to police anybody bringing up anything that we were instructed to disregard. You may not think twelve people is a lot, but I'm my experience, it was twelve wildly different personalities which was frustrating, but ultimately beneficial in coming to a unanimous decision.
Further, they sent us out of the courtroom several times during the trial so opposing counsels could fight over what could and couldn't be entered into evidence for us to see.
The idea is it shouldn't be used when making a decision.
The reality is it obviously will and that's why they do it.
I wonder how much impact it has compared to the juries prejudices, both positive and negative.
The alternative is starting every trial over every time someone crosses the line, and even if you heavily sanctioned the lawyer every time, the amount of extra stress on the system itself and the actual participants would be massive and detrimental.
Forcing a mistrial is already a(n extremely unethical) tactic that's entirely possible in cases where victim testimony is particularly painful. Even if every judge sanctions every lawyer who enables it and they get disbarred at a high rate, it's still something enough money would enable to happen.
They dont, they are human.
The theory is when the jury deliberates and talks about their notes they won't reference the thing that was thrown out. But the jury is very tainted and biased.
In addition to what others have said, it doesn’t always happen like this. More often than not the Jury will be asked to leave the courtroom before the matter is discussed and the Judge will decide whether the Jury can hear the argument when they return.
It's kinda relying on human nature.
You get a pool of people that have sat through a trial, and they then go to deliberate.
Getting twelve people in a room that all agree on anything is not likely. Getting a dozen that all choose to ignore the instructions to make their consensus based on allowed evidence is rolling the dice, but not likely.
I'm a contrarian old bastard, and I'd still ignore most things that a judge ruled to disregard. Most of the time, if something is ruled as inadmissible, there's a reason that's good. As flawed as all court systems are, there are still underlying principles that are in place to maken it less likely a jury will make a decision based on testimony that violates the defendants' rights, and/or violates procedure to such a degree that it could sway a jury in a prejudicial way.
And, again, this is coming from a grumpy old bastard that doesn't like taking orders, and very strongly believes the US justice system in particular needs to be deeply reformed. I'd still do my best to follow an order to disregard testimony, and if the ruling was justified, I'd be sitting there arguing like hell against any other juror that wanted to use it to sway the consensus of the jury.
But did you notice the "if the ruling was justified" part? That's on the jury to decide, and each juror bears the weight of that decision. That's part of what serving on a jury means. We, as citizens, have the obligation to not just serve as jurors when needed, but to serve as a balance to the justice system. When a ruling isn't good, it's incumbent on us to argue against that ruling while trying to come to a verdict.
That's the horror and the beauty of a jury system. It's regular people doing a difficult job they probably don't want to do, may be utterly incapable of doing well, and have the onus of deciding another person's fate. The horror part is greatest when the jurors don't understand the responsibility of the task. But it is the second biggest way that citizens can provide checks and balances to the system as a whole. The absolute biggest being revolution in some form.
I say on a murder trial and we saw no transcript. We could have asked for certain sections to be read to us if we wanted. Wait... We could have asked (you can ask for anything), no idea if the judge would have done it.
You’re correct. They’ll read the transcript to you if asked, but can’t provide a written copy of it for the jury to keep and reference.