Yikes! The one time I actually got on a jury we were given notepads. The rules were that they would be held by the court overnight if the case went over a day (it didn't) and they would be destroyed after the trial.
On another trial the jury pool was asked during voir dire whether any of us had heard of jury nullification. I was the only one to hold up my hand and the prosecutor asked my what I knew about it. I probably went into way too much detail and the prosecutor said maybe I was on the wrong side of the jury rail. Needless to say I wasn't chosen to be on the jury even though I was in the first twelve in the pool.
Sounds like what happened to a gal I know.
She was asked during voir dire (which literally afaik means “See what they will say”) whether if the judges instructions conflicted with her instincts, could she ignore her instincts and follow the instructions?
She basically told him no way in hell would I ignore my instincts, I have to at least be honest with myself.
She was immediately bumped and allowed to go home.
>>On another trial the jury pool was asked during voir dire whether any of us had heard of jury nullification.<<
Well, seems to me that this should be the outlawed question if we are to ever “judge the law,” because that question, answered honestly, rules out everyone who becomes informed on the issue.
The Institute for Justice should look for someone who’s been denied the opportunity to sit on a jury based upon the answer to that question, and run it all the way back up to the Supreme Court. A ruling that such a question is not permitted could be the eventual result.
I’m betting there’s a bunch of Californians faced with finding car seats for their 8 year olds who keep thinking, “I just want a jury of my peers on this one.”