Moussaoui Jury Can't Have Dictionary

[yesdachi]

The following is some cut and pastes of the article but the bottom line is that they wanted a dictionary and were denied one. This seems like an odd request to deny. Any thoughts?

Anyone here ever been on a jury? I was, got to be foreman too. I found the process interesting. Care to guess the verdict?

ALEXANDRIA, Va. - Jurors in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui asked for but were denied a dictionary Tuesday for use during their deliberations on whether the Sept. 11 conspirator should receive a death sentence or life in prison.
Brinkema told them that sending a dictionary in would be like adding additional evidence in the case, but she invited them to come back if they had questions about specific definitions. And she warned them against doing their own research, including looking up definitions.

After she and the jury left, Moussaoui said, "747 fly to London" _ an apparent reference to his dream that President Bush will release him and he will fly to London.
link (http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2006/04/25/376556.html&cvqh=itn_dictionary)

[drone]

I sat on a jury for a civil trial back when I was in college. The lawyers don't want you asking questions, taking notes, or, God forbid, thinking for yourself. And the dumber and more tractable you are, the better. They must have hated the selection batch that day, the final jury had a quite a few college grads and even a PhD. During recesses we would discuss the more obvious ploys used by the lawyers to sway our emotions. An enlightening experience, since then I haven't had much faith in the civil justice system. I did get $125 worth of beer money out of it though, so it wasn't a total loss. :2thumbsup:

In this case, I'm guessing that they don't want the jury to deviate from the given instructions on their decision. A dictionary might have definitions that conflict with those given by the judge.

[Kanamori]

Legal definitions are most important to the case, I would guess. For example what the law specifically describes as crazy can be different from what a dicitonary describes crazy as. In essence, it could very well lead to verdicts that are based on the equivocation of words.

[English assassin]

Unfortunately we don't know what issue they thought the dictionary might be relevant to. I can imagine cases where it would not be appropriate to let them look in a dictionary. For instance, if there is an issue what the "man in the street" would have understood a word or sentence to mean, then the jury, as "men in the street" (OK, in the jury room, but you know what I mean) need to answer that from their own knowledge rather than looking it up in the dictionary.

As an example (albeit of a phrase not a word) in one of the last capital cases in the UK the jury had to decide what the (unarmed) defendant meant when he shouted "let him have it" to his co-defendant, who was pointing a gun at a policeman. Did he mean "give the policeman the gun" or did he mean "shoot the policeman".

No way a jury should be allowed a dictionary in that sort of case. They have to decide based on what they saw and heard on court.

[KukriKhan]

One can sympathize with the jurors somewhat; in this age of mass-media we've become accustomed to omniscient story-telling, where, at the end 'the big reveal' is displayed and the truth is learnt.

Doesn't happen so neatly in real-life though. One side tells one story, the other side tells another. The judge says 'you decide which side is probably closer to the truth, using this evidence (and not that evidence) and your own personal judgment'. That's where some jurors get squeamish, wanting Steven Spielberg to ride in and tell them what 'really' happened.

When I've been on juries, we weren't even allowed our notes taken during trial for our deliberations. Most of my fellow-jurors understood.

[English assassin]

Very true. Colleagues of mine who do jury trials complain bitterly about the "CSI effect" (where jurors are discomfited when they realise that the prosecution isn't going to show them a reconstruction of the crime in state of the art CGI, not to mention the fact that the trial is going to take longer than an hour and not have advert breaks)

[Ja'chyra]

I've always wanted to do jury duty, I think it would be an interesting experiance. Mind you I probably wouldn't want to do it twice :laugh4:

I fail to see why you can't use your own notes though, what's the point of allowing you to take them in the first place, it's a bit like saying that you must make your decision based on how you're feeling at the time as notes are just aides to memory, so, if you're not allowed notes are you not allowed to remember anything either?

[Major Robert Dump]

You cant use notes because sometimes things are stricken from the record, or deemed as being unfit to enter into evidence, etc etc. Also, jurors likely doodle, make references to things the people in the court are doing (just because a person looks guilty when they sit at the table doesnt mean they are) and this is the kind of crap that needs to not be in the room come decision time.

Making everyone pull the facts of the trial out of their brains and refreshing as a group works wonders in getting people to agree on something, and it highlights inconsistencies or things that others may have missed. Notes are taken spur of the moment, quickly and without much thought. They serve as poor evidence compared to pulling the same info out of the brain and putting it into context with a bunch of other people.

[English assassin]

...and the jury can always ask to have any part of the trial transcript read over to them, or to see any exhibit or written evidence again.

[Major Robert Dump]

...and the jury can always ask to have any part of the trial transcript read over to them, or to see any exhibit or written evidence again.


exactly. your notes are irrelevant, as is a dictionary. deliberation is a time for people to splill their guts and go over the facts presented in trial, not pour over notes and hyperbole they may have jotted down during the trial. the judge can give definitions and is right in the next room should the questions arise

[yesdachi]

Very true. Colleagues of mine who do jury trials complain bitterly about the "CSI effect" (where jurors are discomfited when they realise that the prosecution isn't going to show them a reconstruction of the crime in state of the art CGI, not to mention the fact that the trial is going to take longer than an hour and not have advert breaks)
I can understand the frustrations with the “CSI effect” but I swear to _____ (insert deity of choice), if just one person it the entire courtroom had just the slightest hint of personality it would have made many of the people on the jury, myself included, more anxious to be involved. I don’t think anyone in any of the cases I have been involved with were expecting a surprise revelation, Colonel Mustard in the conservatory with a candle stick! But a little drama sure would have solidified the verdict and kept us awake.

In the jury trial I was foreman for we did get to keep our notes and were actually encouraged to take them, not that we needed them. The guy was soooo overwhelmingly guilty it wasn’t real. A clear case of him trying to get an extra couple of months of freedom before being sent to jail (can’t blame him for working the system).

I’ll bet that if the jury asked for the definition of a specific word the court would have given it to them.

[SomeNick]

Post #2 does it for me...

Denied a dictionary... pathetic... talk about misleading the jury then. Just bombard them with enough cultistic legal jargon and write your own verdict. Criminality in it's extreme.

[GoreBag]

As an example (albeit of a phrase not a word) in one of the last capital cases in the UK the jury had to decide what the (unarmed) defendant meant when he shouted "let him have it" to his co-defendant, who was pointing a gun at a policeman. Did he mean "give the policeman the gun" or did he mean "shoot the policeman".

Hilarious.

[Devastatin Dave]

This just in...
Life in Prison...