| Abstrakt: |
The article presents the views of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit with regard to jury note-taking in criminal trials. The first if that the practice is improper and to allow it is reversible error. The second is that of the principal case, that the matter is discretionary with the trial court. Cheek versus State is the authority for the view that note-taking constitutes grounds for reversal. In that case two jurors, over the objection of the defendant and contrary tot he prohibitions of the court, made notes of the evidence. The decision of the trial court was reversed on another ground, but the court said this misconduct of itself would have entitled the defendant to a new trial. The objections to the practice were thought to be that the process of writing necessarily diverted the attention of the juror from other evidence; and that during the deliberations, the jury would be apt to rely on the notes, which might be imperfect, whereas the jury properly should rely on what is registered on their memories. In another case in which the practice was declared improper, the reasons given were that conflicts of memory between jurors would be settled by the notes, which might be inaccurate, meager, careless, loosely deficient, partial and altogether incomplete; and there is increased opportunity for a corrupt juror to influence the other jurors. The dangers of allowing note-taking include the possibility that a juror, usually inexperienced, may erroneously evaluate the testimony, and during deliberations, his memory would be bolstered by such evaluation. |
