On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:32:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:27:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> The judge *could* declare a mistrial, but maybe not after the case
>>>> goes to the jury.
>>> I believe that's correct. Personally, I don't understand why they're
>>> allowed to call a mistrial in the *middle* of a trial for conduct of
>>> the prosecutors, myself, but I'm not a lawyer.  (Mistrial because the
>>> entire jury got hit by a bus or something, sure.)
>> 
>> I think because if the lawyers don't follow the rules, what they do
>> could mislead the jury.
> 
> Yeah. But then the lawyers could intentionally break the rules if they
> think they're losing, and get another chance. If the courtroom
> prosecution lawyer can't handle the rules, the suspect should go free,
> not stand trial again.
> 
> Maybe I wasn't clear. :-)

Oh, no, you were clear - the judge's job in part is to make sure that 
both sides play by the rules and prevent this sort of stuff from going on.

>> Well, I think that depends on the court - in the drug case I sat on the
>> jury for, the judge and I discussed the case once it was done
> 
> That's different. You brought it up. :-)

True, I did.  In watching the video of the verdict in the Hans Reiser 
case, I noted that the judge also indicated to the jury that the lawyers 
may want to talk with them, and that he'd be around to talk with them 
until around 5 PM.  The judge I talked with didn't say anything about 
that to us, but when we went to the jury room to gather our belongings, 
the defense lawyer was there to ask questions.  We got some very 
interesting additional insights into the case at that point - like the 
fact that the defendant was in fact guilty, but that the warrant being 
served was for meth production and distribution, and the cops didn't find 
that.  During the case, we never knew what the warrant was for.

It would be interesting, I think, if the jury got to ask questions along 
the way about the facts, kinda like is depicted in TV Grand Jury 
proceedings (now there's something I would be interested in participating 
in to see how it really works).

I know none of that is related to the point about the judge asking the 
jury about the deliberations or the verdict, just seemed a good point to 
throw that in. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message