I'll save you the trouble of reading the article. People are too f*cking stupid to understand basic principles such as "no, Googling the defendant is not a substitute for courtroom evidence". This is a problem.

Cagey B: I'll save you the trouble of reading the article. People are too f*cking stupid to understand basic principles such as "no, Googling the defendant is not a substitute for courtroom evidence". This is a problem.

Also, "Some people have a Mythbusters-esque urge to test the claims made by the lawyers."

Jurors, you have one job, and one of the judge's jobs is to tell you what exactly that job is. You're not Columbo.

I thought jurists were sequestered for this very reason.

Ambivalence: I thought jurists jurors were sequestered for this very reason.

FTFM. Obviously they're not sequestering JUDGES. LOL!

Dear jurors, quit trying to think for yourselves!

Shostie: Cagey B: I'll save you the trouble of reading the article. People are too f*cking stupid to understand basic principles such as "no, Googling the defendant is not a substitute for courtroom evidence". This is a problem.

Also, "Some people have a Mythbusters-esque urge to test the claims made by the lawyers."

Jurors, you have one job, and one of the judge's jobs is to tell you what exactly that job is. You're not Columbo.

But on SVU they get the DNA results overnight..

I don't really understand the complaint of the article given the examples. Testing the time it takes to dry a body and how drunk you are after a certain amount of drinking seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If the juror undertook those experiments with flawed methodology, let the opposing council point it out and score more points.

Just because they solve everything in one hour on CSI does not mean it works in real life, folks.

the jurors are just being prudent, hence jurisprudence.

Under the rules, jurors are allowed to consider only testimony and evidence presented in the case.

I've searched the Constitution and failed to find these rules for which he speaks.

I'm not defending what the jurors did, just saying. There is way too much belief by way too many in judicial branch that the juror is not the highest authority created by that document.

Cagey B: I'll save you the trouble of reading the article. People are too f*cking stupid to understand basic principles such as "no, Googling the defendant is not a substitute for courtroom evidence". This is a problem.

No, jurors were actually conducting experiments, like seeing how long it takes a body to air dry or how drunk someone can get by drinking three vodkas, to determine innocence or guilt.

"If judges fully explained why it's so important for jurors not to conduct their own research and to abide by other time-honored rules of the criminal justice system, they would be less likely to act on impulses to conduct their own research, he said."

When research fails big time in high profile cases like OJ and Rodney King then I'm not surprised jurors want to conduct their own investigations. Didn't Henry Fonda conduct his own little experiment in "12 Angry Men"?

Benjimin_Dover: Under the rules, jurors are allowed to consider only testimony and evidence presented in the case.

I've searched the Constitution and failed to find these rules for which he speaks.

I'm not defending what the jurors did, just saying. There is way too much belief by way too many in judicial branch that the jurorJury is not the highest authority created by that document.

Fixed for myself

Gyrfalcon: Just because they solve everything in one hour on CSI does not mean it works in real life, folks.

That's true. I remember one time when I tried it at home, it took me several days to reconstruct the procedure.

That's one way to make jury duty fun, I guess.

Shostie: Cagey B: I'll save you the trouble of reading the article. People are too f*cking stupid to understand basic principles such as "no, Googling the defendant is not a substitute for courtroom evidence". This is a problem.

Also, "Some people have a Mythbusters-esque urge to test the claims made by the lawyers."

Jurors, you have one job, and one of the judge's jobs is to tell you what exactly that job is. You're not Columbo.

your job as a juror is to be conscious and conscientious and mindful and smart. it is the judge and lawyers who want you to sit like a herd of mindless cows and be force fed their own version of twisted justice that we now call our legal system. Jury nullification needs to become the norm, not the exception.

Gyrfalcon: Just because they solve everything in one hour on CSI does not mean it works in real life, folks.

Actually, there are only about 40 minutes of the actual episode, so we should expect an even quicker response in real life since there are no commercials.

This is not a repeat from the second season of Quincy, M.E.

Fully Informed Jury Association

/Vote your conscience,
//fark the 'instructions'.

If a juror feels compelled to do his own research, than the lawyers and judge are doing a sh*tty job.

Nrokreffefp: I don't really understand the complaint of the article given the examples. Testing the time it takes to dry a body and how drunk you are after a certain amount of drinking seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If the juror undertook those experiments with flawed methodology, let the opposing council point it out and score more points.

Because Jurors are supposed to evaluate the evidence as presented to them duing the case. They are not supposed to go out and do their own investigations, interviews, or experiments, because they lack the evidenciary and scientific rigor of actual experts in the eyes of the court. Doing what you suggest is actually grounds for making a motion that the jury pool is tainted, and declairing a mistrial.

Jurors are supposed to act as the "reasonable man" standard in cases.

Sounds like a job for Horatio

Not impressed.

/CSB: I was in this play in high school
//I was the one with baseball tickets

This has been a problem for trial lawyers, both in criminal and in civil cases, since long before CSI and its ilk.

Jurors will sit down, listen to the arguments made and evidence presented, and then go into deliberation and start brainstorming their own theories about what really happened. Sometimes they'll come back and deliver a total whiskey-tango verdict. When the attorneys interview them after the trial to find out what their basis was for their verdict, the jurors open up about the fact that so-and-so on the jury made his own analysis of the facts and they just went with that. They assume they're smarter than anyone else in the courtroom, including the judge.

"In Ohio, three jurors famously took showers, timed how long it took their bodies to air-dry and then shared their results with the panel that ultimately rejected a Cincinnati man's claim that his wife drowned accidentally in a bathtub. The woman, who was dry when paramedics arrived, would have been wet if her husband had called 911 immediately, jurors found. "

Not a bad idea, too bad the prosecutor didn't try this experiment and tape it, preferably with a hot female paralegal.. air drying...

/I'll be in my bunk

Nrokreffefp
I don't really understand the complaint of the article given the examples. Testing the time it takes to dry a body and how drunk you are after a certain amount of drinking seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If the juror undertook those experiments with flawed methodology, let the opposing council point it out and score more points.

I only know the US jury system from books and movies, but I don't think the "opposing council" is present while the jury members discuss the case.
And I don't think those examples are that good: people react differently to alcohol and the time the body needs to dry probably depends heavily on the environmental circumstances.

Under the rules, jurors are allowed to consider only testimony and evidence presented in the case.

BUT basic knowledge and common sense must come into play, too. I mean, if the case involves a car, they don't go into detail on how the car was invented, how it works, how it is controlled, or what the rules of the road are (unless the case hinges on one of those things). All those things are assumed to be known by the jury.

So why can't the jury know how long it takes a body to dry? Or what 'prudent' means?

Or is it only a problem if they don't know it walking into the case? But if they already knew it, it's okay?

Nrokreffefp: I don't really understand the complaint of the article given the examples. Testing the time it takes to dry a body and how drunk you are after a certain amount of drinking seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If the juror undertook those experiments with flawed methodology, let the opposing council point it out and score more points.

And you don't think there could be variables in either of those two scenarios? That possibly several people getting together and doing amateur science with possibly no scientific background is a bad thing?

These aren't the best and brightest, these are just a random selection of the population who are tasked with determining guilt/innocence. Period. Jury duty is not the time to act out your fantasies of being a crime scene detective or forensic analyst. There are actually people who have an education in those fields to do that for you, your resume of having watched every episode of Dexter twice does not make you an expert in blood spatter analysis.

If you have experience in something, sure, use it. Sitting in a room timing how long it takes to dry without knowing the atmospheric conditions of the room the victim was in is not farking evidence. Consuming massive quantities of alcohol does not provide you with any relevant information whatsoever, other than how that much alcohol affects you personally.

If there are people so stupid as to think that this cowboy freelance investigator BS is a good idea, I weep for the shattered remains of our justice system.

Shostie: Cagey B: "Some people have a Mythbusters-esque urge to test the claims made by the lawyers."

Even they tell you...



Don't try this at home!

/Kari has only gotten hotter!

I don't have an issue with this up to a certain point. I was a on a jury once where we felt the need to fill in some reasonable blanks because neither said seemed to do it during the trial.

/also, one side spent an inordinate amount of time calling into question the judgement of people involved in the case because they allowed their kids to watch Wild Hogs.

The Voice of Doom: Nrokreffefp
I don't really understand the complaint of the article given the examples. Testing the time it takes to dry a body and how drunk you are after a certain amount of drinking seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If the juror undertook those experiments with flawed methodology, let the opposing council point it out and score more points.

I only know the US jury system from books and movies, but I don't think the "opposing council" is present while the jury members discuss the case.
And I don't think those examples are that good: people react differently to alcohol and the time the body needs to dry probably depends heavily on the environmental circumstances.

You aren't incorrect, but I'm saying that the system should accommodate such experiments and allow them to be debated on their merits, rather than have the jury do nothing but determine the punishment. Expert testimony has been extremely bad in many instances.

I wasn't actually trying to scientifically reproduce that peculiar blood spatter patterm.... she just wouldn't STFU and make me a sandwich.

fredklein: So why can't the jury know how long it takes a body to dry?

Because that's not a goddamned universal constant?

Or what 'prudent' means?

I'm with you on that one, looking up definitions of words I don't have a problem with.

HotWingAgenda: They assume they're smarter than anyone else in the courtroom, including the judge.

That, or they suspect that everyone else in the courtroom is lying and that the "evidence" has been carefully packaged to arrange a verdict determined beforehand according to some back-room deal.
I'm not saying they're correct, but given what ordinary citizens should know about lawyers, policemen and each other, why the fark wouldn't they make such an assumption?

Also, "smarter than the judge"? Have you ever been in court?

Treize26: Nrokreffefp: I don't really understand the complaint of the article given the examples. Testing the time it takes to dry a body and how drunk you are after a certain amount of drinking seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If the juror undertook those experiments with flawed methodology, let the opposing council point it out and score more points.

And you don't think there could be variables in either of those two scenarios? That possibly several people getting together and doing amateur science with possibly no scientific background is a bad thing?

These aren't the best and brightest, these are just a random selection of the population who are tasked with determining guilt/innocence. Period. Jury duty is not the time to act out your fantasies of being a crime scene detective or forensic analyst. There are actually people who have an education in those fields to do that for you, your resume of having watched every episode of Dexter twice does not make you an expert in blood spatter analysis.

If you have experience in something, sure, use it. Sitting in a room timing how long it takes to dry without knowing the atmospheric conditions of the room the victim was in is not farking evidence. Consuming massive quantities of alcohol does not provide you with any relevant information whatsoever, other than how that much alcohol affects you personally.

If there are people so stupid as to think that this cowboy freelance investigator BS is a good idea, I weep for the shattered remains of our justice system.

The job of a jury is not to determine punishment solely, but to protect against government injustices. If the expert facts seem noxiously bad, should the jury attempt to verify them, or simply exercise jury nullification because of their gut instincts? In fact, what we have is the shattered remains of our justice system now, where jury nullification is essentially a secret, and experts produced by the government to argue their side are considered unquestionable and sacrosanct.

Treize26: fredklein: So why can't the jury know how long it takes a body to dry?

Because that's not a goddamned universal constant?

Or what 'prudent' means?

I'm with you on that one, looking up definitions of words I don't have a problem with.

Why can't the expert witnesses simply perform the experiments that they get their testimony from in front of the jury?

Treize26: fredklein: So why can't the jury know how long it takes a body to dry?

Because that's not a goddamned universal constant?


There are lots of things that a jury needs to consider that are not "goddamned universal constants". Yet the jury is supposed to consider them.

fredklein: Under the rules, jurors are allowed to consider only testimony and evidence presented in the case.

BUT basic knowledge and common sense must come into play, too. I mean, if the case involves a car, they don't go into detail on how the car was invented, how it works, how it is controlled, or what the rules of the road are (unless the case hinges on one of those things). All those things are assumed to be known by the jury.

So why can't the jury know how long it takes a body to dry? Or what 'prudent' means?

Or is it only a problem if they don't know it walking into the case? But if they already knew it, it's okay?

The jury can use their common knowledge--that's why we use a jury in the first place.

But if the case hinges on something like whether the body was dry when it was discovered or not--if, as in this case, the prosecutor and the defense have their own timelines for the possible murder or accidental death--then the jury may not go out and establish a THIRD timeline to corroborate one side or the other. They are required to accept either the prosecutor's or the defense's version of events. The basic idea is that the jury is using the facts presented to make their decision, and NOT that they are verifying one side or the other, because that's what the whole case is about.

There are a whole slew of factors that the jury is not able to assess and cannot possibly asses in their ad hoc experiment: if as in this case they are trying to "decide" how long it takes a body to air dry, they'd need to know the size of the actual bathroom, whether or not the windows and doors were open or closed, was it a shower curtain or glass door, etc. etc.--these are all factors that the attorney's expert should have taken into account, and which the opposing counsel should have brought up on cross. But the JURORS can't have known them (since they wouldn't have been mentioned unless the attorneys did) so how could they use them in their impromptu evaluation? Apparently all these folks did was take a shower and time how long it took them to dry--open window? open door? fan? no fan?--which would affect their experiment.

The rules of evidence put limits on who can testify as to these facts and what they can say; if jurors are to be allowed to test facts on their own, we may as well throw evidentiary proceedings out the window and just let anybody say anything about whatever they like in court. Hey, I think it takes a body five minutes to dry, that's what my own test showed! Howcome my opinion isn't as valid as anyone else's?

The system pretends that no one will already have knowledge about the subject at hand. When I was on a DUI jury, I already knew, from being curious and well read, things about DUI tests and also had my own bias about how long it would take a person to get sober after drinking all afternoon. As much as I'd like to restrict my brain to only thinking about what was presented in court, that's an impossiblity. At least in my case I was aware of my biases and set them aside as much as possible. In the case we were hearing, it didn't really matter but we all have a lifetime of experiences and some of that will relate to what's on trial. We might not even be aware of it and just have a "gut feeling".

While I agree jurors shouldn't go home and conduct poorly designed experiments, the notion that anyone is going to decide guilt and innocence based on only what was presented in court is rather naive.

Gyrfalcon: fredklein: Under the rules, jurors are allowed to consider only testimony and evidence presented in the case.

BUT basic knowledge and common sense must come into play, too. I mean, if the case involves a car, they don't go into detail on how the car was invented, how it works, how it is controlled, or what the rules of the road are (unless the case hinges on one of those things). All those things are assumed to be known by the jury.

So why can't the jury know how long it takes a body to dry? Or what 'prudent' means?

Or is it only a problem if they don't know it walking into the case? But if they already knew it, it's okay?

The jury can use their common knowledge--that's why we use a jury in the first place.

But if the case hinges on something like whether the body was dry when it was discovered or not--if, as in this case, the prosecutor and the defense have their own timelines for the possible murder or accidental death--then the jury may not go out and establish a THIRD timeline to corroborate one side or the other. They are required to accept either the prosecutor's or the defense's version of events. The basic idea is that the jury is using the facts presented to make their decision, and NOT that they are verifying one side or the other, because that's what the whole case is about.

There are a whole slew of factors that the jury is not able to assess and cannot possibly asses in their ad hoc experiment: if as in this case they are trying to "decide" how long it takes a body to air dry, they'd need to know the size of the actual bathroom, whether or not the windows and doors were open or closed, was it a shower curtain or glass door, etc. etc.--these are all factors that the attorney's expert should have taken into account, and which the opposing counsel should have brought up on cross. But the JURORS can't have known them (since they wouldn't have been mentioned unless the attorneys did) so how could they use them in their impromptu evaluation? Apparently ...

The rules of courtroom procedure are not determined by the Constitution. Lets find ones that are more fitting to modern society where jurors have far more education and access to information than when the rules were established. There is no reason that they cannot be amended, or even completely scrapped.

Nrokreffefp: The job of a jury is not to determine punishment solely, but to protect against government injustices. If the expert facts seem noxiously bad, should the jury attempt to verify them, or simply exercise jury nullification because of their gut instincts? In fact, what we have is the shattered remains of our justice system now, where jury nullification is essentially a secret, and experts produced by the government to argue their side are considered unquestionable and sacrosanct

If the facts in the case are presented poorly, it's your job to judge them as such. Common sense can easily play a role here. If the prosecution's evidence is ridiculously unbelievable, you weigh them as such. If I'm on trial I sure as hell don't want a bunch of untrained amateurs heading off to the lab conducting completely arbitrary and scientifically unsound experiments to sort things out. You can't surely believe any good can come of this?

These are the same people that get a headache and call 911 because they've scientifically determined (via WebMD) that they are having a stroke. I don't need to be an expert to know when I hear BS, but unfortunately, you kinda should be an expert before you start creating evidence to support one side or another in a case.

As a science educator, this story makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Having questions is good. Running experiments is better.

/somehow I never get chosen in the voir dire

Nrokreffefp: Treize26: fredklein: So why can't the jury know how long it takes a body to dry?

Because that's not a goddamned universal constant?

Or what 'prudent' means?

I'm with you on that one, looking up definitions of words I don't have a problem with.

Why can't the expert witnesses simply perform the experiments that they get their testimony from in front of the jury?

I don't know? It would probably be a good idea actually, providing the evidence wasn't gathered at the scene of the crime at the time that whatever went down.

macadamnut: Have you ever been in court?

Um, yeah. Hence my original comment. Don't take my word for it, go to any law library and you'll find a ton of books about how to manage a trial to make it as hard as possible for the jury to make up their own half-assed theories that have no basis in how the judicial system works. The goal is to keep the jury from distorting the facts to fit what they wanted to have happened, based on their personal bias. They're supposed to use their common sense and personal experience, but there is a problem when they start making up facts that nobody in the courtroom gave them.

The use of expert witnesses is one of the fastest-growing applications of those studies. Put one of the parties on the stand, or an average joe, and the jury might dismiss their entire testimony based on a mole on their chin. Put up someone who is recognized even by opposing counsel as an expert on the issue, and the jury might just accept the undistorted facts.

Treize26: Or what 'prudent' means?

I'm with you on that one, looking up definitions of words I don't have a problem with.

Same here. What's the difference between someone looking up a word and them already knowing the meaning?

Treize26: If the facts in the case are presented poorly, it's your job to judge them as such. Common sense can easily play a role here. If the prosecution's evidence is ridiculously unbelievable, you weigh them as such. If I'm on trial I sure as hell don't want a bunch of untrained amateurs heading off to the lab conducting completely arbitrary and scientifically unsound experiments to sort things out. You can't surely believe any good can come of this?

These are the same people that get a headache and call 911 because they've scientifically determined (via WebMD) that they are having a stroke. I don't need to be an expert to know when I hear BS, but unfortunately, you kinda should be an expert before you start creating evidence to support one side or another in a case.

Never has this rang more true:

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov

office_despot: As a science educator, this story makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Having questions is good. Running experiments is better.

/somehow I never get chosen in the voir dire

So in your view, doing peer review to test another researcher's theories, when you don't know what their underlying variables were, is good science?

Because that's what's happening here, with the "How long does it take for a body to dry" and "What happens if I drink 3 shots of vodka" tests.

One of my problems is that I've spoken to enough lawyers and expert witnesses that I know that the science portrayed in the courtroom isn't a hell of a lot better than the "science" the jurors are inventing in their homes.

One example: lots of lawyers at various blogs were screaming that short recordings of screams could be positively attributed to George Zimmerman because some "expert" forensic audio expert named Tom Owens with a degree in "forensic audio" from a known hack diploma mill said so.

Later it became clear that no actual expert any background in forensic audio would make the claims that Tom Owens made.

And worse, many lawyers like Jeralyn Merritt (talkleft.com) admitted she thought Tom Owen's claims re: Zimmerman were bullshiat, BUT said she had used Owen herself in several cases and he had a great reputation.

So given that as one sample of "science in the courtroom" as represented by actual expert witnesses and lawyers, I am not going to be terribly upset that Joe Dipshiat thinks his shower alcohol observation is valid.

It's all shiat and lawyers should kill themselves.

Rincewind53: office_despot: As a science educator, this story makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Having questions is good. Running experiments is better.

/somehow I never get chosen in the voir dire

So in your view, doing peer review to test another researcher's theories, when you don't know what their underlying variables were, is good science?

Because that's what's happening here, with the "How long does it take for a body to dry" and "What happens if I drink 3 shots of vodka" tests.

Actually, there is no description as to how they carried these experiments out, only that they did. You are assuming (projecting?) that the people doing so were incapable of understanding these things. You can't say what was happening here, you can only guess at what would be happening there if you were the one attempting the experiments.

office_despot: As a science educator, this story makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Having questions is good. Running experiments is better.

/somehow I never get chosen in the voir dire

I have a feeling that the experiments in this case were poorly constructed and with few to no controls, though. I'm all for amateur science experiments, but don't send someone to prison based on your baking soda volcano.

fusillade762: Treize26: Or what 'prudent' means?

I'm with you on that one, looking up definitions of words I don't have a problem with.

Same here. What's the difference between someone looking up a word and them already knowing the meaning?

Nothing at all, looking up a word gives you all the information you need to know what that word means in about 6 seconds, and is really irrelevant to the case. Everyone is qualified to comprehend new words, not everyone is qualified to conduct scientific research with the intent to prove/disprove the guilt of another human being.