|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 02:56 AM EDT |
Re instruction 3, that is easier said than done. In fact a court couldn't
function unless some 'evidence' was brought in from outside.
Consider this. An Apple witness states that the sky is pink. A Samsung
witness says it is blue. No sane juror would believe the Apple witness and
in doing so is bringing knowledge from the outside world into the jury room
to assess whom to believe. We all have some knowledge and experiences
we bring with us. In fact, it is really the sum of an average person's existing
knowledge and experiences that the court are referring to when they use
the phrase "reasonable jury". After all, would a reasonable jury side
with the
Apple witness who says that the sky is pink?
The problem is where to draw the line between outside knowledge that is
needed to function vs that which is inappropriate. Every person will have a
different view as to what is appropriate. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 01:58 PM EDT |
Re: Instruction 1
As I originally stated:
Misunderstandings most
often arise when the *receiving* party incorrectly believes that they *do*
understand what the sending party meant. Thus, armed with an incorrect
understanding which they believe to be correct, they proceed along unaware that
they need any clarification.
The jury cannot, by definition, base
their deliberation on the *judge's* understanding of the law because they are
not the judge. They will, by definition, have their *own* understanding of the
law, as described to them by the judge. If that understanding is *incorrect*,
but they believe it to be *correct*, then they *cannot* know to ask for
clarification.
From that fact, the rest of your arguments fall apart.
(Including the idea that the jury must know to answer each question in order if
they *AREN'T* informed of that requirement.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
