Hypothetical. Put yourself in the shoes of the jury member and try and decide if you would have done what he did. You are on a jury. A man is accused of murder. You are listening to the evidence, but something doesn't seem right. You don't think you can make a decision as to the accused mans guilt unless you see the scene for yourself. The judge has sequestered the jury, but you sneak out to the crime scene, and there you discover vital evidence which will eventually prove that the man on trial has been framed, and will be set free. You don't know if you will discover vital evidence though, you only know that you might. Do you leave the hotel in which you are sequestered and do your own investigation, or do you abide by the judge's rules? If you did know that you would discover evidence that would set the man free, would that change your decision?
The hypothetical situation you described seems very unlikely, like it came out of some fictional plot. I am not going to specifically answer your question. But I will say that I do not believe the judges directions should always be strictly followed in extreme situations. Now, I am generally not a proponent of the controversial position of "jury nullification", but the jurors are there for a reason. If a jury member believes the judge is sufficiently disregarding the law, they may have an obligation not to follow the judge's instructions.
The hypothetical situation you described seems very unlikely, like it came out of some fictional plot. I am not going to specifically answer your question. But I will say that I do not believe the judges directions should always be strictly followed in extreme situations. Now, I am generally not a proponent of the controversial position of "jury nullification", but the jurors are there for a reason. If a jury member believes the judge is sufficiently disregarding the law, they may have an obligation not to follow the judge's instructions.
Off the top of my head . The juror should leave the evidence exactly as found . He should approach the Defence lawyer and get total confidentiality from him with the view to getting the Lawyer to approach the Judge -- first formally in court and then privately , if the Judge will not change his mind . He also must prime a friend /colleague / acquaintance to "find" the same crucial evidence , if necessary . And to photograph every move and have a witness who is above suspicion and truly independent . Should not be too difficult to get a result without being caught . Providing everybody does as promised and keep their mouths buttoned ..
Just so you know, it will be impossible for him to approach the defense attorney. The defense attorney cannot, under any circumstances, talk to a member of the jury.
Anders says this sounds like a fictional plot. Well, it is. It was the plot of yesterdays MacGyver episode 'Rush To Judgement'. In making notes, something didn't sound right, and he didn't think he could reach a decision unless he checked out the scene himself. When he did, he found that vital evidence. If it were me, I would want to see the crime scene. I'd have to be there, and know where the accused was, where the victims were, so I could picture the whole thing in my head.
I think they have in the past. A few years ago, an Australian judge let a jury visit the crime scene. I think it should be standard in any case.
I want to vote that I would if I knew I would find evidence, but how could I know that? I guess I would just stay in the hotel. If there was a setup, any evidence would probably have been destroyed anyway.
I would speak up and inform the judge of my opinion and request we be allow to see the crime scene, I would then outline my reasoning for why going to the crime scene would help me come to a more informed decision. If I knew any evidence pertaining the the case I would share it, and I would share as to how I came across such evidence.
I think the juror should slip into the nearest phone booth and put on his/her Superman/Superwoman costume and fly from the crime scene to right the wrongs. Let's make it a bit more realistic, Makedde. Assume you're on a jury and the judge instructs you to disregard all comments about the defendant confessing because the confession has been ruled inadmissible. But, that bother's you and you use your cell phone to go on the net and discover the "innocent" defendant confessed to the neighbors at the crime scene, confessed to the patrol officer who arrived and had asked no questions, confesed to the jailers and every other jail inmate who would listen to him, and had confessed in front of television cameras. You also read that his numerous confessions includes details and elements known only to the murderer. Now, what would you do, Maekdde? Would you turn yourself in and go to jail? Would you follow the judges orders and ignore the murderers clear guilt? What would you do?
Now, in Mak's defense, the unlikelihood of this scenario was not her own creation; she did say it was a script from TV (MacGuyver). No doubt if we were him, we would pick the lock on our hotel door with a paperclip and rush right out to the crime scene, while making a stop to diffuse a bomb with chewing gum. As for YOUR scenario, if the judge ruled all those (clearly admissable) confessions to be inadmissable, then he is obviously trying to rigg the trial. I would definitely not turn myself in to such a criminal judge. Instead, I would tell the other jurors during the deliberation, and try to get a guilty verdict, never telling the judge why. After the trial, I would go to the media and tell them of the judge's orders, both for self protection and to try to have him/her removed from the bench.
The responsibility of a Juror is to listen to the evidence, not to hunt for it. Were this situation arise, it's likely that any Judge with a modicum of sense would throw the Juror off the panel.
