Thread: You Are On A Jury...

Originally Posted by Makedde

I think they have in the past. A few years ago, an Australian judge let a jury visit the crime scene. I think it should be standard in any case.

Seems like I remember the jurors touring the crime scene in the OJ Simpson case.

I want to vote that I would if I knew I would find evidence, but how could I know that? I guess I would just stay in the hotel. If there was a setup, any evidence would probably have been destroyed anyway.

I would speak up and inform the judge of my opinion and request we be allow to see the crime scene, I would then outline my reasoning for why going to the crime scene would help me come to a more informed decision. If I knew any evidence pertaining the the case I would share it, and I would share as to how I came across such evidence.

I think the juror should slip into the nearest phone booth and put on his/her Superman/Superwoman costume and fly from the crime scene to right the wrongs.

Let's make it a bit more realistic, Makedde. Assume you're on a jury and the judge instructs you to disregard all comments about the defendant confessing because the confession has been ruled inadmissible. But, that bother's you and you use your cell phone to go on the net and discover the "innocent" defendant confessed to the neighbors at the crime scene, confessed to the patrol officer who arrived and had asked no questions, confesed to the jailers and every other jail inmate who would listen to him, and had confessed in front of television cameras. You also read that his numerous confessions includes details and elements known only to the murderer.

Now, what would you do, Maekdde? Would you turn yourself in and go to jail? Would you follow the judges orders and ignore the murderers clear guilt? What would you do?

Originally Posted by PatrickT

I think the juror should slip into the nearest phone booth and put on his/her Superman/Superwoman costume and fly from the crime scene to right the wrongs.

Let's make it a bit more realistic, Makedde. Assume you're on a jury and the judge instructs you to disregard all comments about the defendant confessing because the confession has been ruled inadmissible. But, that bother's you and you use your cell phone to go on the net and discover the "innocent" defendant confessed to the neighbors at the crime scene, confessed to the patrol officer who arrived and had asked no questions, confesed to the jailers and every other jail inmate who would listen to him, and had confessed in front of television cameras. You also read that his numerous confessions includes details and elements known only to the murderer.

Now, what would you do, Maekdde? Would you turn yourself in and go to jail? Would you follow the judges orders and ignore the murderers clear guilt? What would you do?

Now, in Mak's defense, the unlikelihood of this scenario was not her own creation; she did say it was a script from TV (MacGuyver). No doubt if we were him, we would pick the lock on our hotel door with a paperclip and rush right out to the crime scene, while making a stop to diffuse a bomb with chewing gum. As for YOUR scenario, if the judge ruled all those (clearly admissable) confessions to be inadmissable, then he is obviously trying to rigg the trial. I would definitely not turn myself in to such a criminal judge. Instead, I would tell the other jurors during the deliberation, and try to get a guilty verdict, never telling the judge why. After the trial, I would go to the media and tell them of the judge's orders, both for self protection and to try to have him/her removed from the bench.

The responsibility of a Juror is to listen to the evidence, not to hunt for it.

Were this situation arise, it's likely that any Judge with a modicum of sense would throw the Juror off the panel.