During one trial that I was a juror for, the prosecution put on a police officer who stated something that was patently not true. The freeware public defender did not challenge it. I was faced with a dilemma -- quickly verify my correct knowledge (just in case I remembered wrong) or go with the police testimony, and convict an innocent man.
You are on that Jury, as a "peer", to bring your life experiences and common sense to bear on the testimony and evidence presented. No need to verify your current understanding. You are the Juror, YOU decide what is fact in the case. The Officer presented testimony, you have personal experience that casts doubts on it.
In this case, you are really presented with the following options:
Go with your current understanding of this knowledge and determine the officers testimony is not fact, thereby potentially setting a guilty person free.
OR
Discount your current understanding and accept the officers testimony as fact, thereby potentially convicting an innocent man.
In every case I have sat on it was made quite clear: If I was presented with a dilemma like this I was to side with the presumption of innocence.
Or not to put too fine a point on it:
What about bystanders photographing law enforcement committing crimes...
I am sure those BART photographers wouldn't want to draw undue attention either...
Slashdot Mirror
During one trial that I was a juror for, the prosecution put on a police officer who stated something that was patently not true. The freeware public defender did not challenge it. I was faced with a dilemma -- quickly verify my correct knowledge (just in case I remembered wrong) or go with the police testimony, and convict an innocent man.
You are on that Jury, as a "peer", to bring your life experiences and common sense to bear on the testimony and evidence presented. No need to verify your current understanding. You are the Juror, YOU decide what is fact in the case. The Officer presented testimony, you have personal experience that casts doubts on it. In this case, you are really presented with the following options:
Go with your current understanding of this knowledge and determine the officers testimony is not fact, thereby potentially setting a guilty person free.
OR
Discount your current understanding and accept the officers testimony as fact, thereby potentially convicting an innocent man.
In every case I have sat on it was made quite clear: If I was presented with a dilemma like this I was to side with the presumption of innocence.
Or not to put too fine a point on it: What about bystanders photographing law enforcement committing crimes... I am sure those BART photographers wouldn't want to draw undue attention either...