All Hank, all the time.

[ltl/fb]

The Moussawi (sp?) jury asked for a dictionary, and were told no.

"Brinkema told them that sending a dictionary in would be like adding additional evidence in the case, but she invited them to come back if they had questions about specific definitions. And she warned them against doing their own research, including looking up definitions."

Why? Genuinely curious.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
The Moussawi (sp?) jury asked for a dictionary, and were told no.

"Brinkema told them that sending a dictionary in would be like adding additional evidence in the case, but she invited them to come back if they had questions about specific definitions. And she warned them against doing their own research, including looking up definitions."

Why? Genuinely curious.

Sometimes words are used in jury instructions that have a particular meaning -- in the context of that instruction or in the legal/courtroom context generally. The standard dictionary definition does not apply.

I can't think of a solid example off-hand, but I would guess that things like "intent" have a particular meaning, that is defined in some other instruction. That's probably not an issue here, on penalty phase. But things like "mitigating" or "aggravating" would be.

More generally, you never want a jury to be guided by anything other than what the judge tells them, and certainly not by anything that is not clearly on the record. There are any number of appellate cases concerning whether a judge gave the "correct" definition of a term, and that definition is not exactly what the dictionary says. If the jury looks to the dictionary instead, you don't even know what term they are looking up. And this creates an issue for appeal, which is the last thing the court wants to do (especially on a capital case).

I am assuming that the jury wants to look up a term that was used in the instructions. If the jury wants to look up a term that a witness or document used, that is also a problem. The evidence of what the witness meant when he used a particular word should come from the witness, not the dictionary.

"The jury considered x that was not part of the courtroom process" is an argument any criminal appellate lawyer wants to be able to make. If x relates to an instruction, even better -- it means that there is a good argument that the jury was guided by something other than "the law", as given to them by the judge.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Sometimes words are used in jury instructions that have a particular meaning -- in the context of that instruction or in the legal/courtroom context generally. The standard dictionary definition does not apply.

I can't think of a solid example off-hand, but I would guess that things like "intent" have a particular meaning, that is defined in some other instruction. That's probably not an issue here, on penalty phase. But things like "mitigating" or "aggravating" would be.

More generally, you never want a jury to be guided by anything other than what the judge tells them, and certainly not by anything that is not clearly on the record. There are any number of appellate cases concerning whether a judge gave the "correct" definition of a term, and that definition is not exactly what the dictionary says. If the jury looks to the dictionary instead, you don't even know what term they are looking up. And this creates an issue for appeal, which is the last thing the court wants to do (especially on a capital case).

I am assuming that the jury wants to look up a term that was used in the instructions. If the jury wants to look up a term that a witness or document used, that is also a problem. The evidence of what the witness meant when he used a particular word should come from the witness, not the dictionary.

"The jury considered x that was not part of the courtroom process" is an argument any criminal appellate lawyer wants to be able to make. If x relates to an instruction, even better -- it means that there is a good argument that the jury was guided by something other than "the law", as given to them by the judge.

OK. If they had a question about a word a witness used, would the witness be called back to the courtroom?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
OK. If they had a question about a word a witness used, would the witness be called back to the courtroom?

The attorneys should have made some pitch at closing for what they contend it means if it were an issue, or clarified with a follow up question. Witnesses don't get called back. Absent the above the jury is on its own. a term used by a witnessis different than the instructions. they are told that they should ignore anything they hear about what the law might be except for what the judge instructs. The judge likely won't instruct on what most terms used by a witness might mean.

there are times when a definition of a term could be stipulated and then the judge would instruct the jury, but i doubt that happens much in criminal cases. My practice is limited to pawn shop law, so we might stipulate as to "redemption" forfeiture" etc. in our lititgation, but I don't know about criminal law.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
OK. If they had a question about a word a witness used, would the witness be called back to the courtroom?

Highly unlikely. The judge would instruct them that they should give words their ordinary meaning, but would not let them look that meaning up in the dictionary.

It's a strange system, sometimes. But the best one going. People don't always use words according to their strict dictionary definitions when speaking, and dictionaries can create more confusion than they resolve because words can have so many different meaning.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The attorneys should have made some pitch at closing for what they contend it means if it were an issue, or clarified with a follow up question. Witnesses don't get called back. Absent the above the jury is on its own. a term used by a witnessis different than the instructions. they are told that they should ignore anything they hear about what the law might be except for what the judge instructs. The judge likely won't instruct on what most terms used by a witness might mean.

there are times when a definition of a term could be stipulated and then the judge would instruct the jury, but i doubt that happens much in criminal cases. My practice is limited to pawn shop law, so we might stipulate as to "redemption" forfeiture" etc. in our lititgation, but I don't know about criminal law.

Hank's right -- this is the lawyers' job, in any trial.

In criminal law, there is a whole body of law and approved instructions about the meanings of particular words and phrases. In civil law too, but especially in criminal law because the right to a jury trial is so critical. A few years ago, the validity of the standard instruction defining of the term "reasonable doubt" was in question in California; had the Supreme Court rejected that definition, it would have been chaos -- literally thousands of cases needing to be retried.

I was in a trial a few years ago where we argued the definition of "but for" for God knows how many hours and pages over the course of several weeks.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
Well that will probably be the last time I get to make significant posts until June 6th.

If you have a full-time job, you can usually get work release.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Sometimes words are used in jury instructions that have a particular meaning -- in the context of that instruction or in the legal/courtroom context generally. The standard dictionary definition does not apply.

I can't think of a solid example off-hand . . .

Malice.

Most common "can we have a dictionary, please?" term.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore

[THUNK!]

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
[THUNK!]

Sorry. I was on a long conference call.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Malice.

Most common "can we have a dictionary, please?" term.

Yes -- that's the one I was looking for. Intent, malice, I mixed them all up.

It doesn't help that most jury instructions are incapable of defining any term in less than 75 words, generally in one run-on sentence rife with subordinate clauses.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Sorry. I was on a long conference call.

And instead of posting, you were doing .... what???

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And instead of posting, you were doing .... what???

Why, putting every ounce of my effort and my heart and my soul and my best work towards what needed to be done to make the world a better and safer and more profitable place for my employer, of course. What else?

Oh, and sleeping. Lots of sleeping.

Any big changes? Who hates who now? (No, wait, that's the FB question.)

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
Why, putting every ounce of my effort and my heart and my soul and my best work towards what needed to be done to make the world a better and safer and more profitable place for my employer, of course. What else?

Oh, and sleeping. Lots of sleeping.

Any big changes? Who hates who now? (No, wait, that's the FB question.)

There sure are an awful lot of pissed of bees buzzing around.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
There sure are an awful lot of pissed off bees buzzing around.

Most of them are in Iran. I recommend Raid.