Replies

I predict that over the next few weeks/months some jurors will read through the testimony and threads,such as these on FR, and come to the horrible realization that they convicted an innocent man.

I've always wondered why jurors weren't allowed to read the transcripts and had to sit through readbacks instead. A careful reading and analysis creates a better understanding of what was testified to, IMO. And yes, I have been on a jury and a forelady to boot.

I predict that over the next few weeks/months some jurors will read through the testimony and threads,such as these on FR, and come to the horrible realization that they convicted an innocent man.

I predict you have an exaggerated sense of the importance of your posts.

"I've always wondered why jurors weren't allowed to read the transcripts and had to sit through readbacks instead."

The reason that I have been given is that the transcripts do nothing to show the demeanor/intonation of the witness and other factors surrounding the testimony. Judges don't want juries obsessing over written material; they want all the circumstances surrounding testimony and all the other evidence considered as well.

Another reason is historical; transcripts didn't used to be ready by the time the jury started deliberations. That's not as true today with computerized transcription which tends to be done in the evening following testimony each day. Even computerized transciption needs to be analyzed and corrected by the court reporter, however. As with computer translations from foreign languages, not all the words come out right straight from the computer. The court reporter has to read through and make corrections.

I had lunch with a judge once and asked him all about this, and this is what he told me.

Actually, I think juries ought to get a transcript to take into the jury room.