jurys and evidence

[marty50]

i haver a question about when a judge tells a jury to dismiss evidence and not to use it to make they final judgment or verdict.

when evidence is presented to the court and it is not admitted, how can the defendant and the other side know that the jury is not gonna use that evidence, even tho they have seen incriminating evidence?

i dont know, i was thinking if this was a tactic ploy for any lawyer side to bring any incriminating evidence, even tho they know it will be thrown out by the judge.

the lawyers can do it on purpose knowing it will be thrown out. giving the jury a chance to see the incriminting evidence, b4 it gets thrown out.

so how does one know that the jury will remember that incrminating evidence against whomever? would they use that in their final judgemnet in they heads?

or does the jury have to write down on paper why they came up with the reason they convict someone?

ive been wondering how corrupt a jury can get, and some of the stuff i wonder if they just keep inside their heads to make their final judgment, even tho they arent supposed to use it to make they final decision.

 

[SecondzAway]

Yea I feel you on that. Its hard to say what kind of impact that would have. I think the harder thing would be looking at something that had been tossed out with "court room eyes" as apposed to normal ones. What I mean by that is that when you look at something in the court room it isn't about right and wrong, its about the law and what is defined as legal and illegal. Most people from a young age are taught about right and wrong, simply tossing that aside for a lot of people I would assume wouldn't be easy. While many people share the ideal that right/wrong & the law are the same thing, many people do not. What makes it more interesting is that right and wrong are really personal truths and many laws are based off a general concencious of what right and wrong is, laws in the same are a matter of personal truth. The one difference being of course that courts stand behind laws, not behind what each individual person thinks is the right course.

 

[HERESY]

i haver a question about when a judge tells a jury to dismiss evidence and not to use it to make they final judgment or verdict.

when evidence is presented to the court and it is not admitted, how can the defendant and the other side know that the jury is not gonna use that evidence, even tho they have seen incriminating evidence?

They don't know. The only thing a judge can do is instruct them on what to do with the evidence. Ultimately, there is no way to truly say if a person considered it or not.

i dont know, i was thinking if this was a tactic ploy for any lawyer side to bring any incriminating evidence, even tho they know it will be thrown out by the judge.

Yes, this is a tactic, but it can also backfire as they may get in trouble. Even worse, a mistrial can be declared if it is proven the jury and verdict were compromised because of it.

so how does one know that the jury will remember that incrminating evidence against whomever? would they use that in their final judgemnet in they heads?

Once its out there its out there. You can tell them all day long to not consider it, but do you know for sure they aren't going to consider it or didn't? No.

or does the jury have to write down on paper why they came up with the reason they convict someone?

Google "jury deliberation process" and "jurors notes."

ive been wondering how corrupt a jury can get, and some of the stuff i wonder if they just keep inside their heads to make their final judgment, even tho they arent supposed to use it to make they final decision.

Watch 12 Angry Men (this is a very good movie), Runaway Jury, and read The Appeal (John Grisham).

 

[marty50]

thank you for the responses kind sirs. ill look more into it.

 

[HERESY]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6823915.ece

Read that

 

[marty50]

hmm, i guess it's up to the individual juror, and their prior experiences. those experiences might not directly relate to the court case they are hearing at the moment,

but they could be able to compare partially some parts and pieces of their past experiences with some of the evidence and testimonys in the court case. even if the evidence gets thrown out or not.

im starting to think that there cant be a fair trial when a jury is involved. im not sure if there is true justice then.

im looking for some kind of corruption in the system, which there seems to be a lot of. liars lying, innocents getting thrown in jail, only to be freed 20 years later thru dna testing, tainted jurys,

attorney-client priveledges letting unsolved cases go unsolved for years, until the client dies and the attorney stating that his client is the one that murdered, all the while the innocent is being forced imprisioned, cuz he signed a piece of paper out of stupidity and ignorance of not knowing they rights, and also, jsut to close the case and make the DA tuff on crime. you cant be 100% all the time with justice, but it seems closer to zero percent justice than 100% justice. and some stupid laws that are man made dont help either.

they had this guy who grew pot so and so number of plants, he did it illegally, so they gave him a felony. but they also gave him a felony for having a registered gun, cuz he got caught up growing for a felony. you cant have guns if you get a felony, or im guessing during the act of the felony.

but im looking at it like he registered the guns before he had got the felony. and he was cleared by the state to own a gun. i cant see how the law can say hell get a felony for having a gun registered before he got the actual felony.

i dont understand these laws anymore, i dont understand this one with guns and felonys, but i dont go by these man made laws anymore, they are too excessive and these laws get added ontop of other laws.

i do what right and what is good in life without harming others, but hearing some things about the system, i really think society is a menace to me. they vampires.

 

[swoop187]

i haver a question about when a judge tells a jury to dismiss evidence and not to use it to make they final judgment or verdict.

when evidence is presented to the court and it is not admitted, how can the defendant and the other side know that the jury is not gonna use that evidence, even tho they have seen incriminating evidence?

i dont know, i was thinking if this was a tactic ploy for any lawyer side to bring any incriminating evidence, even tho they know it will be thrown out by the judge.

the lawyers can do it on purpose knowing it will be thrown out. giving the jury a chance to see the incriminting evidence, b4 it gets thrown out.

so how does one know that the jury will remember that incrminating evidence against whomever? would they use that in their final judgemnet in they heads?

or does the jury have to write down on paper why they came up with the reason they convict someone?

ive been wondering how corrupt a jury can get, and some of the stuff i wonder if they just keep inside their heads to make their final judgment, even tho they arent supposed to use it to make they final decision.

I dont know what you mean but...

Its called discovery and withholding evidence is "illegal", meaning its not admissible in most situations.

"discovery" is where the prosecution has to turn over all evidence they have against you, they can hold nothing back.

If you mean how does a jury wipe their mind clean after seeing incriminating evidence and the judge informs the jury to discard the evidence due to precedential argument?

^^ If thats the case how could a jury member really NOT let it influence their ruling on the case? especially if its video evidence or some form that makes the defendant look guilty as hell but is only dismissed due to legal standard?

 

[radiostationrep]

Its called discovery and withholding evidence is "illegal", meaning its not admissible in most situations.

"discovery" is where the prosecution has to turn over all evidence they have against you, they can hold nothing back.

you are correct regarding discovery but that has nothing to do with the question.

heresy answered the question.

*edit* asked and answered. next question.