The Toss Of A Coin Robert Sheridan bobsheridan firstname.lastname@example.org
Yeah, tossing coins is bad news in jury trials. It's supposed to be a rational process. If everybody agrees, you have a verdict. If not, a mistrial and a re-do, as in hung juries, even 11:1. Usually the sides decide to compromise at that point, but not always.
Lawyers talk to jurors after the trial ends. If it turns out the jurors cheated, such as by investigating themselves (they're supposed to decide based on evidence screened by the judge, both sides having a chance for input, and requesting relevant jury instructions), or by drawing lots, you didn't get a jury trial, you got screwed and are entitled to request a new trial, a fair one, this time.
Post-trial interviews sometimes uncover jurors who have improper relationships with parties that they hoped to keep hidden, or they refused to deliberate, or looked things up (investigating), such as words in the dictionary (the judge defines all words, according to legal, not dictionary definitions). Or jurors lie about not having been convicted of something, or a close relative, or this or that. Jurors lie as much as other categories of people you might imagine.
Seems like we all come from the same pot. No one has a monopoly on virtue, not even StatNislanders.
Interesting topic, whoever posted it (can't see who after I've gone into "Reply" mode).
Staten Island WebŪ Forums Index.