Discover more from Overcoming Bias
I just finished serving on a jury in a rape trial. The accused and the alleged victim had been best friends. The alleged victim testified that she was forcibly raped whereas the defense attorney suggested that the sex was consensual. The accused never testified. The only significant evidence presented by the prosecution was the testimony of the alleged victim. During cross examination the defense attorney attempted to reduce the credibility of the alleged victim and managed to trip her up on one point. Everyone on the jury agreed that the case came down to the credibility of the alleged victim.
It would have been extremely helpful during our deliberations to have had a videotape of the alleged victim’s testimony. But the judge told us that it was not even possible to have a transcript of such testimony. All we had to rely on were the handwritten notes we were allowed to take during trial.
The cost of providing the jury with a video recording, audio recording or written transcript would have been trivial, perhaps less than the cost of keeping a man in jail for a single day. So I can’t imagine that cost is the reason why we the jury were denied such useful information. Rather I suspect that those Massachusetts politicians or officials who have the power to give juries such information don’t greatly care about the accuracy of jury trials.
Give juries video recordings of testimony
If you google 'note taking juries', you get articles on experiments in real life juries, scientific articles and research on the matter ranging from 1951 to present, and even a National Jury Trials Innovation Project. I think there is no reason to assume that bureaucratic laziness has anything to do with the matter, but that the juridicial system is highly conservative about change. That doesn't sound to me as very bad.
In general, the main objection against notes seems indeed to be that jurors might be less attentive and spend to much time taking notes. It is also unclear who would be benefit, I read people claiming both ways.
The scientific research is mainly behind paywalls, but the trouble here seems to be that while research and experiments with mock or real trials are all possible and being done, the results can only be used to say what side benefits. Which one really determines the truth better is pretty hard to research.
"How did the trial turn out?"
Not guilty on rape but a hung jury on two lesser charges. Everyone on the jury, however, thought it was more likely than not that a rape occurred, but we all had some reasonable doubts about whether the rape happened.