Filmmaker Rob Stewart's family files wrongful death lawsuit

[mdb]

Some jury members base their decisions on what they think of the attorney's and their performance. Like they are judging a debate contest.

Good comment Steve_C:

There is a well known attorney who does a lot of litigation in the SCUBA biss.

He drives a Rolls Royce and is quite proud of his success.

He will represent either side in any case. Typical of many lawyers.

He shows up at pretrial and jury selections dressed very informally and looking a
bit disheveled.

Come actual trial time he is turned out handsomely in well cut suits, well groomed
and with a different demeanor.

He understands playing to the jury.

 

[boulderjohn]

I served in exactly one jury, and it was a fairly serious case--vehicular homicide. The defense attorney was among the most famous in Colorado. We were one of the first juries serving under a new law that allowed jurors to take notes, and 10 of us took careful and copious notes throughout the trial. When we started deliberating, the 2 who had not taken notes had a different memory of the trial from the rest of us, and the rest of us were constantly correcting their memories. That was because of the skill of the defense attorney, who lied and misrepresented evidence throughout the trial. For example, during voir dire, he talked repeatedly about the fact that they were going to present certain evidence that would clear his client, and he wanted to know if we would accept that evidence when it was presented. Every juror heard that every time a potential juror was interviewed. During his summation, he emphasized how important that evidence was, and he reminded us that we had heard it said many times. That alone was enough to convince the 2 who had not taken notes. The 10 who had taken notes had to point out that the defense had never actually presented that evidence--we had indeed heard it many times, but only from the attorney himself during voir dire and his summation. The prosecution had presented clear testimony that it was not true, and that testimony was not challenged by the defense; the defense never brought it up themselves.

The amount of evidence presented to a jury can be overwhelming--far too much to remember. A skilled attorney can manipulate a jury by playing to their inability to remember it all. Couple that with the fact that people who are experts on the topic of the trial are not allowed to serve, and you have a perfect recipe for incorrect verdicts.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

I served in exactly one jury, and it was a fairly serious case--vehicular homicide. The defense attorney was among the most famous in Colorado. We were one of the first juries serving under a new law that allowed jurors to take notes, and 10 of us took careful and copious notes throughout the trial. When we started deliberating, the 2 who had not taken notes had a different memory of the trial from the rest of us, and the rest of us were constantly correcting their memories. That was because of the skill of the defense attorney, who lied and misrepresented evidence throughout the trial. For example, during voir dire, he talked repeatedly about the fact that they were going to present certain evidence that would clear his client, and he wanted to know if we would accept that evidence when it was presented. Every juror heard that every time a potential juror was interviewed. During his summation, he emphasized how important that evidence was, and he reminded us that we had heard it said many times. That alone was enough to convince the 2 who had not taken notes. The 10 who had taken notes had to point out that the defense had never actually presented that evidence--we had indeed heard it many times, but only from the attorney himself during voir dire and his summation. The prosecution had presented clear testimony that it was not true, and that testimony was not challenged by the defense; the defense never brought it up themselves.

The amount of evidence presented to a jury can be overwhelming--far too much to remember. A skilled attorney can manipulate a jury by playing to their inability to remember it all. Couple that with the fact that people who are experts on the topic of the trial are not allowed to serve, and you have a perfect recipe for incorrect verdicts.

This was exactly my experience on a recent federal court trial. The prosecution called a dozen witnesses and likely introduced over 100 exhibits; the defense seemed to be counting on the jury getting bored and confused. I don't think they counted on several of us sitting there taking notes and putting together a timeline. For me, the nail in the coffin was when they never produced any counter to one set of exhibits that showed the alternate suspect they were trying to pin the matter on had a solid alibi. In his closing argument the lead defense counsel either accidentally or intentionally mixed up the parts of one text conversation in a way that favored his client and most of us saw right through it.

So yes, an attorney can try and flimflam through a case, but if they don't select a favorable jury it can backfire horribly.

 

[kelemvor]

This was exactly my experience on a recent federal court trial. The prosecution called a dozen witnesses and likely introduced over 100 exhibits; the defense seemed to be counting on the jury getting bored and confused. I don't think they counted on several of us sitting there taking notes and putting together a timeline. For me, the nail in the coffin was when they never produced any counter to one set of exhibits that showed the alternate suspect they were trying to pin the matter on had a solid alibi. In his closing argument the lead defense counsel either accidentally or intentionally mixed up the parts of one text conversation in a way that favored his client and most of us saw right through it.

So yes, an attorney can try and flimflam through a case, but if they don't select a favorable jury it can backfire horribly.

Huh. It's been a good 10 years since I sat on a jury, but I didn't know Jurors could take notes. Granted, all I know about sitting on a jury is what they told us before the trial and what I've seen on tv.

 

[boulderjohn]

Huh. It's been a good 10 years since I sat on a jury, but I didn't know Jurors could take notes. Granted, all I know about sitting on a jury is what they told us before the trial and what I've seen on tv.

It varies from one location to another. When I did it, we were the first jury allowed to take notes under a new law.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

I'm not sure what the history is in FL, or if the rules are different for federal court, but we were each provided with a steno pad and a pen. I had to get one extra pad and two extra pens before it was over. At the end of the trial the notes are collected to be shredded, which I found dismaying - mine would have made for entertaining reading.

 

[boulderjohn]

I got to keep my notes.

 

[abnfrog]

they take them so that there's not a book in the making

 

[tridacna]

they take them so that there's not a book in the making

Not quite true.

"As trials have become more complex, and the information given more difficult to remember and place in perspective, a number of states have made express permission for jurors to take notes during the trial. These states include Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Although only one state expressly prohibits this practice, in most jurisdictions whether members of a jury are allowed to take notes will depend upon the discretion of the judge. One survey indicated that 37 percent of the judges in state courts indicate they do not allow jurors to take notes during a trial. In federal courts, this matter is also left up to the judge.

Many judges oppose juror notetaking because in their view jurors cannot make the distinction between important and trivial evidence. As a result, the more vital evidence may not be recorded and the less important may be, making it impossible for a jury to reach a rational verdict. However, studies performed in Wisconsin and Arizona indicate that notetaking did not influenced the verdict, or distract the jurors; notes taken were accurate and did not result in the notetakers dominating non-notetakers in the jury deliberations."

As @boulderjohn noted, he was able to retain his notes; others have to leave them behind. It's up to the judge and has nothing to do with writing a book.

 

[The Chairman]

Your usual baloney. Do you just make stuff up?

So hostile! It was just idle speculation on his part. Take a deep breath.