Should defendants be screened from the jury?

[tshile]

In a trial should the defendants identity be kept from the jury? Should (s)he be screened out in the court room? Is there some part of the law that dictates that this isn’t allowed?

 

i feel like the jury is able to look at a defendant and come to conclusions based on that (whether it’s because of race, or because a person looks a certain way, or because of they way they do or don’t act during trestimony) that may otherwise not be supported by evidence 

 

 

[skinsmarydu]

No. I agree with you. 

[Renegade7]

I imagine that's what the jury selection process is for.  

 

It goes both way, say the person pressing charges looks guilty AF, but the defendant looks innocent?  We need to do a better job of crime scene investigation to help prevent innocent people from getting sentenced.  Some people think every murder is like a episode of CSI, no, they don't have the resources for that, not even close.

 

No, I don't like this idea, but I understand why you brought it up.  I'd say if I looked further it would likely somehow be unconstitutional.

[twa]

I vote no.

a defendant can face their accusers and a jury can face both.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, twa said:

I vote no.

a defendant can face their accusers and a jury can face both.

 

Does the jury have a right to face the accused?

 

we know they use it. We hear jurors after a trial cite their opinions on the reactions they saw during testimony. 

 

We know people are judgemental. We also know people are bad at making judgements. While this is a thought experiment more than me having an opinion, im struggling to see the benefit in the jury being able to watch the defendant during a trial. 

 

People have to change their names (lie on their application) just to get asked in for an interview. 

[twa]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

 

Does the jury have a right to face the accused?

 

 

 

Dunno about right, but there seems to be some reason they can be tried with a remote live video feed rather than just audio..

[skinsmarydu]

I believe a defendant's mannerisms are a part of their "testimony", even if they don't take the stand. 

I may be wrong, but isn't there "tried in absentia"?

[tshile]

13 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Dunno about right, but there seems to be some reason they can be tried with a remote live video feed rather than just audio..

 

I feel like the visual component is an is-ought problem, but I obviously don’t actually know law or the history of it. 

 

In a day where prejudice and isms are the main talking points everywhere, i find it easy to imagine this works against the system (ie is an unfair component towards the defendant) more often than for the system. 

 

But I’m just making this up as I go...

11 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

 

I believe a defendant's mannerisms are a part of their "testimony", even if they don't take the stand. 

 

In a way that’s sort of my point. You’re forced to testify in this way, even though you’re not supposed to be forced to testify. 

 

Ive heard  of abstentia but I’m not going to go further out on my making it up as I go limb here

[twa]

4 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

I believe a defendant's mannerisms are a part of their "testimony", even if they don't take the stand. 

I may be wrong, but isn't there "tried in absentia"?

 

we don't do that except in misdemeanors  or when the accused is disruptive generally speaking.

rule 43 or something.

maybe one of our legal Beagles can clarify

[Renegade7]

22 minutes ago, tshile said:

We know people are judgemental. We also know people are bad at making judgements. While this is a thought experiment more than me having an opinion, im struggling to see the benefit in the jury being able to watch the defendant during a trial. 

I'd like to see stats to support this claim if you can.  I'd like to see the amount of years each person walks in facing and actually gets. I know many people take guilty pleas because they don't think the cops have enough evidence to prove they're innocent, jury isn't being given enough information to be "judgmental" towards.

 

Where is @Predicto these days?  You alright, homie?

 

Edit:  For the record, I'd want the jury to see me if I'm the defendant.

[skinsmarydu]

25 minutes ago, twa said:

 

we don't do that except in misdemeanors  or when the accused is disruptive generally speaking.

rule 43 or something.

maybe one of our legal Beagles can clarify

By "we", I'm assuming Texas specifically? That's where I was going, is there a difference between state and federal statutes, etc? Do some states not require defendants to be in court? 

[Renegade7]

32 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I feel like the visual component is an is-ought problem, but I obviously don’t actually know law or the history of it. 

 

In a day where prejudice and isms are the main talking points everywhere, i find it easy to imagine this works against the system (ie is an unfair component towards the defendant) more often than for the system. 

 

But I’m just making this up as I go...

In a way that’s sort of my point. You’re forced to testify in this way, even though you’re not supposed to be forced to testify. 

 

Ive heard  of abstentia but I’m not going to go further out on my making it up as I go limb here

 

I mean, as long as its people making the decisions and not some kind of computer there will always be some innate bias in the sentencing process.

 

 If its not the face, its the voice, if its not the voice, its a transcript.  From my perspective, the judge can see me, right?  They are bias, too, I believe that if people are telling me I got such and such judge.  If I get a hardass, I'm definetly going to want the jury because I think they'd be more lenient if they see me, too.  Again, I don't have any face tattoos either.  I see where you're going with this, just can't go there with you.  

 

"Why didn't the defendant not want the jury to see them? Did he have face tattoos or something?"

 

It could backfire and be worse.

[AsburySkinsFan]

59 minutes ago, twa said:

I vote no.

a defendant can face their accusers and a jury can face both.

The jury isn’t accusing.

Anyone ever sat on a jury?

I’m on jury duty now...if I’m ever on trial for just about anything no way do I want a random pool of people deciding my fate. Not when most of them voted for Trump.

Hell if they ain’t smarter than that then I’ll just trust my fate to the judge.

[bearrock]

Right to be present at trial and in front of the jury is the defendant's right and can be waived.  Short of the defendant growing horns, I don't know if any defense attorney would have the guts to depart from the norm and recommend it to the client.  There's also the problem of not having the defendant provide info and feedback on evidence to the defense attorney.

[Renegade7]

New Mexico said Skype for the defendant violates the 6th amendment.

 

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/trial-practice/practice/2016/new-mexico-supreme-court-holds-skype-testimony-violates-sixth-amendment.html

[SoulSkin]

3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

I imagine that's what the jury selection process is for.  

 

It goes both way, say the person pressing charges looks guilty AF, but the defendant looks innocent?  We need to do a better job of crime scene investigation to help prevent innocent people from getting sentenced.  Some people think every murder is like a episode of CSI, no, they don't have the resources for that, not even close.

 

No, I don't like this idea, but I understand why you brought it up.  I'd say if I looked further it would likely somehow be unconstitutional.

 

The one time I did jury duty, we ended up with a hung jury. Some people wanted to use their instincts, for lack of a better word, in their decisions. I was steaddfast in the "beyond a reasonable doubt" part of it, which there clearly was to me and a couple of other jurors. I was not budging on it, if I was the last one. I was picked by the prosecutors side too. They thought I looked compassionate, which I am, but I was also not going to send someone to prison for the rest of their life if they couldn't come up with solid, irrefutable evidence. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

I think the Fonzi jury duty episode of Happy Days pretty much covered this. Too much preconceived bias comes into play. Somebody could be completely innocent but their looks make people think they’re guilty. 

 

In a world with so much hate and discrimination, I think it would help the defendant’s due process to be anonymous 

[SoulSkin]

I should have added that the process, in the trial I was a part of, seemed a little off to me. I respectfully argued with people for hours upon hours about the reasonable doubt aspect. After long days of testimony from all parties involved and jury deliberations, I was convinced that some jurors just wanted it to be over, and were basing their decision on the majority opinion and the way the tide seemed to be flowing. I truly believe we were headed towards sending someone to prison who may have been innocent. I had to take sort of a leadership role and. not necessarily defend someone's innocence, but just continually point out that the prosecution failed to prove what they were charging the person with. 

 

I do recommend that if you are called to jury duty, don't try to get out of it, if you can take part in the process. It's not fun, but embrace it, take it very seriously, and do your civic duty, You might learn a lot, and you'll probably gain some personal growth from it. Plus, free pizza maybe, if the judge keeps sending you back in to try to finally come to a consensus.

 

[brandymac27]

Interesting thread! Makes you wonder if the jury thought OJ Simpson was really "James Smith" if the verdict would've been different?

[twa]

4 hours ago, skinsmarydu said:

By "we", I'm assuming Texas specifically? That's where I was going, is there a difference between state and federal statutes, etc? Do some states not require defendants to be in court? 

 

I believe all us criminal courts require them to be there except for some minor charges

some national security matters have used it to target us citizens deemed terrorists overseas, though that is not a trial technically.

[Kosher Ham]

I agree, that you see a lot from the body language/visual behavior of people. 

I agree, that it would be an interesting thing to try to see if the witness/accused was anonymous. 

 

Thing is, we would not ever be able to do that to legally make it happen. 

Not to mention the media based on freedom of press. 

 

I would love and hate it. Other odd part is actually knowing if it was a jury of peers. 

 

Laws and such. 

 

[Burgold]

I actually did a long form interview with USC Prof of Law Jody Armour on this topic. It was really interesting. Don't get turned off by his appearance. He's a really good legal mind.

 

[Kosher Ham]

I miss having hair like that. 

Well, kind of. My hair was more 70's curly. 

Well... hair at all really. 

 

Nice excerpt of your interview Burgold. 

 

Thanks. 

 

 

 

 

[tshile]

Hot damn @Burgold you just made my day. I wasn’t expecting that, though I should have guessed my ideal wasn’t novel, but has been batted around in the field. 

 

Everything he said supported what’s I was thinking, although admittedly I was more focused on a general ‘look’ in my head as opposed to it being strongly racially related. A juror thinking “he didn’t look sad enough” when testimony of the wife’s death was given, or some other abstract critique like that. But racial bias is just easier to understand. Especially when we talk about measuring the wickedness of someone as a party of sizing their guiltiness. I’d never heard the process explained that way. 

 

Im reminded of a study I watched where kids were asked to pick the “bad kid” and the “good kid” from a page with kids of different shades. The whiter was selected as the good kid, the darker as the bad. If people are asked to measure wickedness of ones heart and are required to sympathize with ones actions, the racial bias we know to exist everywhere would seemingly have a terrible effect. 

 

So so thank you very much for that!

[Burgold]

I think it's tied together. Race can definitely be a component perhaps even moreso when it comes to unconscious bias, but I think body language, gender, age, and other components come into play too.

 

I did a series of these with Jody called Under America's Armour (based obviously on his last name). Jody really is well versed and studied. I found him during my VOR days, it's one of the reasons I don't really regret having worked there. I was allowed the freedom to cover such interesting topics. I loved the science reporting best, because I choose scientists on the cutting edge and got to speak to them in the flush of their first successes and talking to a biologist who developed a new medicine, an archaeologist who found an undiscovered Mayan tomb, or a surgeon who restored movement and feeling to a quadriplegic is thrilling. Better, it provided "good news." News we can all celebrate. And we don't put out enough of that, but these law and social justice concepts were really interesting to delve into also.

 

Good topic, tshile. As to the question itself, I think there is value we can get from visual cues, but it comes with baggage. If nothing else, how each of express nervousness or grief can be different and what we think is boredom or apathy could be shock, it could be confusion, or it could be a well trained sociopath. In some cases, I think blinding makes a lot of of sense.I think what I might recommend for certain trials is that the jury remains blinded during the prosecution and defense phases, but is made visible if the defense chooses to have him or her go to the stand.