• Apepollo11@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • anonymouse2@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I thought that in US law, jury didn’t have to explain their verdict? (I believe the whole “object” is an US law thing)

      • moistclump@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.