• LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    They don’t want someone to start adding context or outside information during the jury deliberation. If you do, then the defense has no opportunity to argue against you.

    They don’t want any additional discussion that could sway the case unfairly one way or the other.

    • PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      That is my understanding as well.

      But that’s “lawyers vs justice”.

      The jury is supposed to think for itself.

      • LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, you are supposed to be able to put up a defense.

        Who’s to say the jury is correct? What if the specialist made an assumption that was wrong, shared it with the jury, and found a person guilty because they trusted this expert. Now you have no way of challenging this, and rebutting the assumption.

        You DON’T want those “independent thinker” jurors you need them to only consider what’s been presented in the case. It’s the only way it can be fair.

        • PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah. That’s why I’m disqualified from jury duty.

          Everything you have just said (except for being able to put up a defense) insults me and my understanding of justice.

          I don’t want the people who may eventually try me to behave like you’re saying.

          That’s lawyers vs justice.