(Though apparently—and outrageously—one has to be careful here: I know a mathematician who once served on a jury and was accused of juror misconduct for presenting “facts not in evidence” to his fellow jurors, namely “the mathematical theory of probability”!)
Really? Not a witness, defendant, lawyer, but a juror used their knowledge of probability and that counted as bringing in “facts not in evidence”??? What’s the point of having a jury if the jury members can’t, you know, actually make any use of their knowledge? What’s next, “basic reasoning skills are not part of the actual evidence, so you’re not allowed to think when deciding”? Excuse me, I have to go foam at the mouth now. :p
Anyways, as far as the rest, that essentially is part of my concern. (Though you detailed it much more completely than my own thoughts did, but fuzzy thinking along those lines was part of my concern)
Hence my quandary: If presented with a drug use case, should I nullify if defendant is “guilty”?
Really? Not a witness, defendant, lawyer, but a juror used their knowledge of probability and that counted as bringing in “facts not in evidence”??? What’s the point of having a jury if the jury members can’t, you know, actually make any use of their knowledge? What’s next, “basic reasoning skills are not part of the actual evidence, so you’re not allowed to think when deciding”? Excuse me, I have to go foam at the mouth now. :p
Anyways, as far as the rest, that essentially is part of my concern. (Though you detailed it much more completely than my own thoughts did, but fuzzy thinking along those lines was part of my concern)
Hence my quandary: If presented with a drug use case, should I nullify if defendant is “guilty”?