Sudoku-Playing Jurors

Do I mind when jurors don't pay attention to the trial? I guess if they miss some of the evidence against my client, it might be ok. But in general, I feel like they're about to make a serious decision, they should give it their full attention.

In Sydney, Sudoku-playing jurors make judge stop drug trial. Two things of note: the men were facing life sentences for drug conspiracy (I thought only we Americans had these crazy life sentences on drug cases) and the trial had taken 66 days so far (maybe I could see needing a little sudoku break after 66 days.)

9 comments:

  1. Geeez, I heard Sudoku was addicting but that's carrying it to the next level :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Blissful? Your new job must be suiting you well. You need to leave Thome in the lineup more often. He had a homerun today, but he was on your bench...

    ReplyDelete
  3. 66 days? I'd find it very hard to give my full attention to a trial that was taking two months of my life. I'd probably be working on my novel while the attorneys talked! It seems amazing that trials can take so long.

    Mack, who is a lawyer and glad he's not a juror

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry, Thome is on Making Outs (also to be off topic).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ummm ... isn't a bit inconsistent to be web surfing when your client's on the phone and then be indignant when jurors are spacing out during a trial?

    ReplyDelete
  6. In defense of Sudoku, I've found that it actually helps me pay attention in class by keeping me focused on something that doesn't require too much attention. At least this way, most of my mind is in the room, rather than wandering off somewhere over the rainbow.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gerard, Ummm... no, some of my clients call every single day and say the same thing over and over again for hours on end. If it makes it feel better for them to think I'm listening, I'm glad to help. But I'd take it a little more seriously if I was sitting and listening to evidence to make a huge decision that's going to change someone's life.

    ReplyDelete
  8. One thing that the commentators and bloggers seemed to have missed - clearly the learned judge had lost control of the case and the learned counsel had bored the jury to the point they had stopped listening. A mistrial is the right outcome; anything else (guilty or not-guilty) could have been a miscarriage of justice.

    ReplyDelete
  9. One thing the commentators and bloggers seemed to have missed. Clearly the learned judge had lost control of the trial and the learned counsel had bored the jury to the point they stopped listening. A mistrial was the only proper outcome; anything else (guilty, not-guilty) could have been a miscarriage of justice and any properly briefed appeal court would have sent it back for a retrial.

    ReplyDelete