48.The questioning of one juror, which elicited such information as that juror number 4 might have been annoying some of the other jurors and that the speaker had a strong personality, occupied about eight pages of transcript. The prosecutor was allowed to question that juror both before and after defence counsel questioned the juror. Another juror, juror number 11, responded to a question by the prosecutor whether that juror had noticed that juror number 4 had any lesser ability to comprehend information, reason and form opinions than the other jurors in the affirmative. Juror number 11 added that juror number 4 said irrelevant things and that, when juror number 1 returned to the court room juror number 4 asked questions and enquired whether the jurors were allowed to talk about it and answer questions. Other jurors answered that they could not do so because five minutes earlier they had been told by the judge not to ask questions. Juror number 11 thought that juror number 4 had not comprehended what the judge had told the jurors. 49.After the speaker and six other jurors had been examined in that way, they left the courtroom and juror number 4 was questioned by the trial judge, the prosecutor, and defence counsel. The trial judge’s questioning elicited that juror number 4 had completed grade 12 at school and passed all subjects apart from a couple. She had since worked delivering pamphlets and in a take-away food café. She was on medication for anxiety and was well. She had been listening to the evidence and there had not really been any problems in her discussion with other jurors. She had contributed a little bit. When asked whether she had any problems remembering the names of any witnesses she said that she was not very good with names. In the course of questioning by the prosecutor, the juror said that she thought that being a juror was an important job “[b]ecause he could do it again… to older people or young people…if he wasn’t found guilty…”. The juror agreed that one of the matters she would contribute to discussion in the jury room in the course of deciding whether or not the appellant was guilty was whether the appellant could do it again. The prosecutor then asked a series of personal questions, enquiring whether the juror lived with other people (she lived with her parents), whether she had brothers and sisters and how many (she had an older sister and an older brother), whether they lived with her parents too (they did not), whether her parents looked after her a bit, cooked her dinner at night, and did her washing (they did). The juror thought she and everyone else on the jury had the skills to have a good discussion and to make a good decision. In answer to a question by defence counsel, juror number 4 made it clear that she had not already contributed to any discussion with the other jurors that she thought it important that the appellant would do it again if he was not found guilty. https://jade.barnet.au/Jade.html#!sy=348175
Posted on: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 03:16:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015