I’m a nurse and was on a murder jury trial with a sheriff deputy. They’re not allowed to ask your profession in voir dire. What you cannot do is provide expert testimony as a juror in deliberation. You are, of course, expected to use your experiences in your decision.
They don’t want someone to start adding context or outside information during the jury deliberation. If you do, then the defense has no opportunity to argue against you.
They don’t want any additional discussion that could sway the case unfairly one way or the other.
No, you are supposed to be able to put up a defense.
Who’s to say the jury is correct? What if the specialist made an assumption that was wrong, shared it with the jury, and found a person guilty because they trusted this expert. Now you have no way of challenging this, and rebutting the assumption.
You DON’T want those “independent thinker” jurors you need them to only consider what’s been presented in the case. It’s the only way it can be fair.
I’m a nurse and was on a murder jury trial with a sheriff deputy. They’re not allowed to ask your profession in voir dire. What you cannot do is provide expert testimony as a juror in deliberation. You are, of course, expected to use your experiences in your decision.
They don’t ask your profession.
They ask things like your highest level of education or “if you use math at work”.
That last one got one of my colleagues immediately dismissed.
They don’t want someone to start adding context or outside information during the jury deliberation. If you do, then the defense has no opportunity to argue against you.
They don’t want any additional discussion that could sway the case unfairly one way or the other.
That is my understanding as well.
But that’s “lawyers vs justice”.
The jury is supposed to think for itself.
No, you are supposed to be able to put up a defense.
Who’s to say the jury is correct? What if the specialist made an assumption that was wrong, shared it with the jury, and found a person guilty because they trusted this expert. Now you have no way of challenging this, and rebutting the assumption.
You DON’T want those “independent thinker” jurors you need them to only consider what’s been presented in the case. It’s the only way it can be fair.
Yeah. That’s why I’m disqualified from jury duty.
Everything you have just said (except for being able to put up a defense) insults me and my understanding of justice.
I don’t want the people who may eventually try me to behave like you’re saying.
That’s lawyers vs justice.
I’ve had jury duty twice in NY. I’m educated and use math and programming in my work daily.