In a 2016 NY case a juror was asked if any of his "close relatives" had ever been charged. He said no, but after the trial it was discovered that his father had gone to prison for 7 years. Was he lying? Is this juror misconduct? But what does "close relatives" mean? He was raised in an orphanage and was never close to his father. Judges and lawyers during jury selection need to use plain language and avoid legalese. Elsewhere in this blog I have noted that standard instructions over the past 10 years need to be constantly updated as to social media venues that jurors could potentially use to discuss the case during trial. The outdated instructions often refer to MySpace and fail to include media sites not even around then, such as Snap, Instagram. Some jurors when found to have been on social media about the case have replied, "You never said we couldn't use ______!"
Legalese terms are familiar to judges and lawyers, but not non-lawyers. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a concept that is difficult even for lawyers and judges to agree upon. I have asked 25 potential jurors to raise their hand if they have ever been a party in a lawsuit. No hands go up. Then I would ask if any are divorced and half of them raise their hands. They didn't think a divorce case is a "lawsuit," even if contested. Likewise, most would not consider a DWI to be a "crime."
In conclusion, the vast majority of jurors have no intention to lie during jury selection. It is up to the judge to insure that the questions are clear and understandable.
See also 4-16-18 post.
No comments:
Post a Comment