Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

How can the Judge tell me as a Juror, what I can and cannot take into account in deliberations?

Banned Member
@BryanGStephens
Join to bookmark18likesJoin to like56comments

When I sat on a jury, one of the charges was what we could and could not take into account. They wanted us to look at the facts of the case. In this case, there was a directed verdict because the law was so very clear. We just had to debate if there should have been an award (so we said) and how much (held up on appeal, so we were apparently in the right).

However, one of the defendants on the stand was so clearly a long-term alcoholic to my eyes, it lent a lot of credence to the testimony of the plaintiff regarding the other man's behavior. In short, the accusations against the defendant that he behaved like a belligerent drunk were totally believable.

It seems to me, that once I am back in that room, I can decide whatever I want based on whatever I want from the case. And I could easily refuse to vote "guilty" just because I did not like the haircut of the DA.

What am I missing?

This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.

Discussion (56)

  • Banned Member@BryanGStephens
    ReplyingtoCaryn

    Caryn (View Comment):

    Honor.

    I was hoping for a bit more legal analysis than that, but thank you for your input.

  • Pagodan@MatthewBaylot

    You could, but you’d be violating the oath you took as a juror to base your verdict only on the facts of the case as presented at trial and the law given to you by the judge. Except in rare and egregious cases, the court isn’t going to pry into jury deliberations, but the assumption is jurors are acting within their oath.

    So the judge instructs the jury on what they can and cannot consider, because the judge is legally required to do so.

  • W Bob@WBob

    In a criminal case, the jurors have the last word if they acquit the accused. Even if they violate what the judge tells them, too bad. The verdict is final. But if they convict a defendant, the judge could theoretically overturn the verdict if he thinks they violated the jury instructions.

Scroll for later comments
+51 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 56 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.