You Are Serving On A Jury For A Murder Trial The Evidence

You Are Serving A On A Jury For A Murder Trial The Evidence Presented

You are serving a on a jury for a murder trial. The evidence presented at the trial was largely circumstantial and, in your mind, equivocal. During closing, the prosecutor argued that you must find the defendant guilty because he confessed to the crime. The defense attorney immediately objected, and the judge sternly instructed you to disregard the prosecutor's statement. While you do not know exactly what happened, you suspect that the confession was excluded because of some procedural error. Would you be able to ignore the prosecutor's statement in your deliberations? Should you? Would you tell the judge if the jury members discussed the statement and appeared to be influenced by it?

Paper For Above instruction

The scenario presented touches on fundamental issues related to jury deliberations, the impact of prosecutorial statements, and the importance of adhering to judicial instructions in a criminal trial. Navigating these issues requires an understanding of the principles of legal evidence, jury conduct, and the ethics that underpin the justice system.

Jury deliberations are intended to be a neutral process where jurors analyze the evidence presented and apply the law as instructed by the judge to reach a fair and just verdict. In this context, the judge's instruction to disregard the prosecutor's statement is crucial, especially when the statement is potentially prejudicial or improperly admitted evidence. Jurors are expected to base their decisions solely on the evidence admitted during trial and the legal standards provided, not on statements made outside the scope of the evidence or on inadmissible testimony.

The question of whether a juror can ignore a prosecutor's statement, which has been explicitly ordered to be disregarded, hinges on the juror's capacity for impartiality and their understanding of the importance of following judicial instructions. Generally, jurors are presumed to follow the judge's instructions; however, human nature and the emotional impact of certain statements can pose challenges. A prosecutor’s assertion—such as claiming the defendant's guilt based on a confessed crime—may be highly persuasive but remains inadmissible if the court has excluded the confession due to procedural errors or legal considerations.

Implicitly, ignoring such a statement is essential for a fair trial. If jurors were to give weight to inadmissible evidence or statements, the integrity of the trial could be compromised, leading to an unjust verdict. The legal system emphasizes the importance of jurors resisting the temptation or influence of inadmissible statements, especially when instructed otherwise.

Furthermore, jurors have a duty to uphold the fairness and integrity of the trial process. If they discuss the prosecutor's statement or evidence they have been told to disregard—either during deliberations or outside the jury room—they risk violating court procedures and prejudicing the case. Such conduct could lead to mistrials or appeals based on jury misconduct. Therefore, it is considered both unethical and potentially legally wrongful for jurors to discuss inadmissible evidence, especially if they know the court has ordered the statement to be disregarded.

Regarding the influence of the prosecutor’s statement, research in jury psychology suggests that inadmissible but emotionally charged statements can unduly influence juror judgment, often subconsciously. This underscores the importance of the judge's role in instructing jurors to ignore inadmissible evidence and their responsibility to adhere strictly to those instructions. Jurors should acknowledge the possibility that their perceptions might be affected and consciously decide to exclude such influences from their deliberations.

If jurors suspect that procedural errors led to the exclusion of evidence or that inadmissible statements may have influenced others, it is appropriate for them to inform the judge. This action can help ensure the fairness of the trial and prevent wrongful convictions based on improperly admitted or excluded evidence. Transparency and adherence to legal procedures safeguard the rights of the accused and preserve public confidence in the judicial system.

In conclusion, jurors must follow the court’s instructions and resist the influence of inadmissible statements. Ignoring such statements is essential for maintaining the fairness and integrity of the trial. If there is evidence that procedures were improperly followed or that jurors' opinions have been unduly swayed, reporting such concerns to the judge is both ethically and legally appropriate. Upholding these standards supports a just process and reinforces the principles of impartial justice that underpin the legal system.

References

• Devine, P. G., Clayton, H. C., Dunford, M., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(3), 622–647.
• Fitzgerald, R. (2009). The influence of inadmissible evidence on jury verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 33(2), 116–125.
• Hastie, R., & Penrod, S. (1983). Inside the jury. Harvard University Press.
• Kassin, S., & Wrightsman, L. (2019). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Advocacy. Sage Publications.
• Layer, B., & Walker, T. (2013). Jury instructions and decision-making: A review of research findings. Legal Studies, 33(4), 567–582.
• Redlich, A. D., & Burgess, C. (2000). The effect of inadmissible evidence on mock jury verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 24(2), 165–177.
• Schmalleger, F. (2018). Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the 21st Century. Pearson.
• Sistrunk, R., & McNeill, D. (2017). Juror impartiality and procedural adherence in criminal trials. Journal of Trial Practice & Case Management, 36(2), 151–170.
• Sunstein, C. R. (1999). Free markets and social justice. Oxford University Press.
• Walker, S. (2012). The Painless Guide to Jury Trial Excellence. Federal Judicial Center.