Texas Jury Says It's OK to Shoot an Escort If She Won't Have Sex With You

[Distind]

Though having a taping of the trial available to the jury may not be a horrible idea. Do they have access to the offical record of it while deliberating?

[mellenORL]

Though having a taping of the trial available to the jury may not be a horrible idea. Do they have access to the offical record of it while deliberating?

That's the case. Access to the clerks' word-for-word stenography transcript of testimony pretty much on demand, via request to the judge. It's one reason so many juries take forever to reach a verdict...and probably proof that at least some of them don't pay enough attention. Or just get shut down from information overload and non-stop talk that they can't process or retain very much. I swear, some of the derpier verdicts prove to me that skilled defense attorneys can brainwash a jury.

[chitoryu12]

Even I can barely stand to watch trials sometimes. There's so much information that you may or may not actually be able to understand.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Even I can barely stand to watch trials sometimes. There's so much information that you may or may not actually be able to understand.

That's sometimes the point. If the jury has no idea what's going on, they're doubting, and feel they have reasonable doubt.

[TheReasonator]

Even I can barely stand to watch trials sometimes. There's so much information that you may or may not actually be able to understand.

That's sometimes the point. If the jury has no idea what's going on, they're doubting, and feel they have reasonable doubt.

Or that's what they should do.

Something tells me most jurors don't make a point of it when the trial is done in a way where they can't really keep up.

Maybe we could hook up jurors to brain scan equipment to make sure they are truly engaging the trial while making sure the material is presented in a way where if the scan says they're good they must be paying attention.

[ironbite]

.......*faceclaws*

Ironbite-no Reasonator...just no.

[Askold]

I get the feeling that the reasonator was joking.


I hope.

[TheReasonator]

I get the feeling that the reasonator was joking.


I hope.

Yes. That would expensive and to be ethically we'd have to go to an all volunteer jury which would make it even more expensive.

Personally on the jury I would ask for a transcript after every trial and read and reread everything just to make sure I was a good juror and not missing anything that would give me reasonable doubt (even if I already noticed some reasonable doubts those could turn out rebutted so I must be aware of all of them so I don't say "guilty" when there are facts of the case that are cause for reasonable doubt). But most people even people who'd be capable of handling that wouldn't do that. A proper trial requires a thorough combing through all the evidence. There's NOTHING to guarantee the jury does that rather than just go to their hotel room watch TV and eat bon bons until the next trial. And furthermore nothing to guarantee the jury will even pay attention as the trial goes on rather than say, daydream about going to Hawaii or think about the vacation they scheduled for themselves right after jury duty figuring they'd need it after jury duty.

I'm not saying jurors are bad people. Afterall they don't have a choice about being there. But that's even more reason why jurors might not be particularly into playing the role right instead of just "going through the motions and getting it over with". A "go through the motions and get it over with" attitude could compromise the quality of justice in the court rooms. Jurors could have reasonable doubt but give up in deliberations before they really have had their doubts satiated because they want to go home faster. And sometimes that could even just be on a subconscious level for the juror not to realize they really still had reasonable doubt until they are home, and they realize they allowed themselves to be persuaded because they wanted to get out of there so badly.