Question about Jurors deliberations

Kaila

SF VIP
I have not served as a Juror, and I am wondering :geek:

what limitations there are,
on what jurors are allowed to tell the other jurors,
about their own life experiences, their personal past, and their resultant views and present feelings, while they discuss with each other, :unsure:
whether witnesses seemed credible, the validity of things they heard in the courtroom, regarding the case, and why they each hold certain beliefs and how they came to whichever conclusions, they each hold about the verdicts.

In worst case scenario, if the jurors had discussed together, something in a juror's past, that then influenced other jurors, could that render their concluding verdict possibly invalid?
Or would it open a possibility that a lawyer could claim that a juror should have been screened out during jury selection;
and if so, how large an effect could that have, after a case had been concluded?

Example:
If a juror said, that they do not believe that a person who had been robbed would say what a primary witness had said.
And if I as another juror, told the jurors, that I had been robbed years ago, and I had said that.

If that influenced others on the jury to change their minds, and find a defendant guilty, could it lead to invalidating the final verdict?
Or, might that only happen, if I had not been upfront about my past experiences, during jury selection?

(Again, please note that I have not served on any jury. :LOL::giggle:
I just decided it was easiest to explain my question, by using myself as a hypothetical juror.;) )
 

bowmore

Senior Member
Before the jurfy is empaneled, there is a process called voir dire. Both opposing attorneys ask pertinent questions of each juror. In you example, if the person was charged with robbery, one or both attorneys would ask each juror if they had ever been robbed to see if there is any bias one way or the other.
 

Murrmurr

Well-known Member
Before the jurfy is empaneled, there is a process called voir dire. Both opposing attorneys ask pertinent questions of each juror. In you example, if the person was charged with robbery, one or both attorneys would ask each juror if they had ever been robbed to see if there is any bias one way or the other.
Yes. During jury selection each prospective juror is asked pretty much the same questions. They want a jury of the defendant's peers but it's more a jury of like-minded people, which at least avoids any off-topic conflict in the deliberating room.
 

ElCastor

Member
Location
Northern CA
I have not served as a Juror, and I am wondering :geek:

what limitations there are,
on what jurors are allowed to tell the other jurors,
about their own life experiences, their personal past, and their resultant views and present feelings, while they discuss with each other, :unsure:
whether witnesses seemed credible, the validity of things they heard in the courtroom, regarding the case, and why they each hold certain beliefs and how they came to whichever conclusions, they each hold about the verdicts.

In worst case scenario, if the jurors had discussed together, something in a juror's past, that then influenced other jurors, could that render their concluding verdict possibly invalid?
Or would it open a possibility that a lawyer could claim that a juror should have been screened out during jury selection;
and if so, how large an effect could that have, after a case had been concluded?

Example:
If a juror said, that they do not believe that a person who had been robbed would say what a primary witness had said.
And if I as another juror, told the jurors, that I had been robbed years ago, and I had said that.

If that influenced others on the jury to change their minds, and find a defendant guilty, could it lead to invalidating the final verdict?
Or, might that only happen, if I had not been upfront about my past experiences, during jury selection?

(Again, please note that I have not served on any jury. :LOL::giggle:
I just decided it was easiest to explain my question, by using myself as a hypothetical juror.;) )
Whoa! I think you are over analyzing. I've served on several jurys. You discuss the case in general, the evidence, the testimony of the witnesses, and the relationship of all of it to the plaintiff's claim and/or applicable law or laws. Avoid fantasizing or engaging in speculation. Bottom line, say what you like, but go too far off course and few will take you seriously, although some may eventually get irritated. Just honestly share your thoughts with your fellow jurors, and get on with it. Get too nutsoid and you could be reported to the judge and possibly removed. Here is a lengthy discussion on that subject.
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/...luding-jurors-removing-and-disqualifying.html
 

Judycat

Well-known Member
Location
Pennsylvania
I was on a jury too and anyone adding their own personal experience to the discussion was immediately shut down by the foreman. We were reminded excessively to only consider the facts of the case while deciding a verdict. Even so, someone would inevitably try adding his own experience. Didn't work. I was impressed.
 

Kaila

SF VIP
Here are reasons for a Challenge for cause to remove/disqualify a potential Juror, as opposed to any Peremptory challenges.

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2945.25
Thanks for this, Ohioboy.
That is a very interesting article. Especially in section B, the qualifier that comes after the ' but.'
That is the one most related to what I had been specifically wondering...

though many of the other reasons are very interesting as well.
 

Sassycakes

SF VIP
Location
Pennsylvania
I served on Jury Duty when I was 21yrs old, and I never would want to serve again. I was the youngest person on the Jury and the only white woman. We were trying a Black man for rape incest and corrupting the morals of a minor. I was a nervous wreck until we were walking into the room to come to a judgment. There were 2 older women walking in behind me and I heard them say "I hope they hang the bast***" I stopped worrying then because I felt the same way. After all these years I still remember the man on trial's name and address. Thankfully he was convicted.
 

Kaila

SF VIP
I have started reading those, @ohioboy
and am finding it very interesting. Thank you.:geek:

@Sassycakes
That seems very young for the experience of serving on a trial, with that sort of crime.:(
Then of course, you, yourself, would have had personal effects from it.
 


Top