Should Jurors Get to Ask Questions During Trial?

The stereotype is deeply embedded in our minds and media when it comes to jury trials: the jurors sit passively, perhaps nodding or even crying in response, as the attorneys, witnesses, and judges battle before them, then retire to a room to argue about a defendant’s freedom or the fate of millions of dollars. They are instructed to decide the case based only on what they have seen and heard in the courtroom, but have little or no input on the evidence.

But that might be starting to change. More and more jury reform advocates — judges among them — have been pushing for more juror freedom when it comes to asking questions during trial. Could we be witnessing the end to the static, silent jury and see more juror involvement during the course of the trial?

Hear No Questions

As it stands now, most state and federal courts prohibit juror questions to witnesses, outside of special or extreme circumstances. The idea is that it is the attorneys’ job to present evidence and extract witness testimony, and the jurors’ job to render a verdict based on that evidence. The fear with allowing too many juror questions, especially directly to witnesses and parties to the case, is that jurors would themselves become advocates for one side or the other or make up their minds too early in the case, before hearing all of the evidence.

See No (Outside) Evidence

One of the main arguments pushing for more juror questions involves the ban on jurors conducting outside research on the case, through news sources, internet searches, or social media. Despite being ordered to not access these sources and decide the case solely based on the evidence presented, many jurors disregard this instruction, risking a mistrial and wasted time and resources. If jurors were to get these questions answered in court, the thinking goes, they would be less prone to conduct outside research.

Speak No Verdict

Others have advocated that, by allowed more juror involvement during the trial, you can get more well-reasoned jury verdicts. As civil and criminal trials become longer and more complex, jurors are asked to sit, indifferent and mute, through days, weeks, and even months of arcane and esoteric proceedings, then issue verdicts that could cost defendants millions or their lives. More involvement in the trial itself, with more questions posed to witnesses and the judge, could lead to more attentiveness during the proceedings and more diligence and care when rendering a verdict.

Perhaps a more informed jury is a better jury.

Interesting Lawsuit of the Month-Attorney Who Claims He Choked On Popeyes Fried Chicken Sues Because He Was Not Given a Knife at the Drive-Thru 

Previously:

A Mississippi attorney sued Popeyes after he says he nearly choked to death on a piece of fried chicken because he had to eat it with his hands.

In a lawsuit filed against Popeyes, Paul M. Newton, Jr. states that he ordered two chicken breasts, red beans and rice, a biscuit and a soft drink through a Gulfport drive-thru window in November 2015, but it only came with a spork. The lack of a knife for the chicken forced him to take matters into his own hands and “tear off pieces thereof with his teeth,” according to a copy of the complaint obtained by The Huffington Post.

That manner of eating allegedly caused him to start choking on a bite of his food. It ultimately resulted in Newton undergoing emergency surgery at Gulfport’s Memorial Hospital to remove the chicken from his throat.

“It really happened. I almost choked to death,” Newton said in a statement to local TV station WLOX.

The Gulfport attorney’s complaint seeks compensation for his medical expenses, pain and suffering, punitive damages, as well as a jury trial. He also wants future customers of the 44-year-old chain to receive plastic knives with their meals so they can “cut the chicken breast into appropriate portions.”

Not everyone agrees with Newton.

“If you choke on your chicken and you have to get the chicken removed from your throat, it’s not because Popeyes didn’t apply a knife to the box,” former Popeyes employee Tory Stokes told WLOX. “Maybe you should slow down eating. Nobody eats fried chicken with utensils.”

Update:

Attorney Paul M. Newton, Jr. has said that he is dropping his suit against the popular fast-food chain after receiving “extreme comments directed to me and my family.”

“I continue to believe that the facts demonstrate an unsafe condition to the public that could easily be solved by the responsible parties at very little cost. I am hopeful that my filing of the court proceeding results in such remedial actions,” he said in an email to The Huffington Post.

Quote of the Month

“I think anything is possible if you have the mindset and the will and desire to do it and put the time in.”- Roger Clemens