Juries are usually limited to the information presented at trial, i.e. the relevant admissible evidence. When juries ask about the definitions of words, they are told to use their common experience and understanding to come to a definition, and are forbidden to look to outside sources, because that would in effect, make the dictionary a piece of evidence (or another juror).
Either you are an attorney, which I believe or you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
uppy: Thank You though!
JohnnyMac said:
thanks. while i'm sure this explantion is correct...it doesnt make sense to me. i mean, if the juror's heard testimony that they did not understand, how can the trial be fair? isnt it in the interest of justice to make sure the juror's understand all the testimony?
what if one of the juror's didnt speak english? would a translator be allowed?
A potential juror who did not speak english would never make it on to a jury; he or she would be eliminated in voir dire.
As far as understanding the testimony: juries are often comprised of, shall we say, not the best and brightest. Retirees, housewives, students, and the unemployed are often the only ones who can serve on a trial scheduled to take more than one or two days. It is a problem for lawyers who want to get too complicated with the testimony: you lose the jury.
As far as understanding the testimony: juries are often comprised of, shall we say, not the best and brightest. Retirees, housewives, students, and the unemployed are often the only ones who can serve on a trial scheduled to take more than one or two days. It is a problem for lawyers who want to get too complicated with the testimony: you lose the jury.
