|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 08:57 PM EDT |
... and if I look under a microscope there are bacteria on my skin. Looks like
I'm not clean. I'd better remove my skin to make sure.
... OK I'm being facetious. But you are being a perfectionist to a ridiculous
degree. Jury members are human beings. They come to the trial with a wide
variance of backgrounds and knowledge. There is no such thing as a completely
pristine juror. The question is not whether or not the jurors are 'contaminated'
in some way by overhearing a comment about the law. The question is whether
irrelevant information and evidence will influence their decisions as a juror.
The judge has decided that the legal information imparted in this case to the
juror was fairly harmless and any possible issue arising from it could be dealt
with by simply clarifying the law to the jurors. It is the judge's job to make
such decisions. I am sure he made the right call in this case.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|