Jurors beware!

Everything about Sudoku that doesn't fit in one of the other sections

Jurors beware!

Postby m_b_metcalf » Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:04 pm

Trial ends after jurors play Sudoku - MSN News UK:

http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=8536407
User avatar
m_b_metcalf
2017 Supporter
 
Posts: 8355
Joined: 15 May 2006
Location: Berlin

Postby udosuk » Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:05 am

I think jurors are required to have logical reasoning abilities. Perhaps they're too keen to prove it to the judge?:D

Amazingly it happened in the city I live in. Hopefully they won't get paid for their time spent. But I'm not sure we should blame the million A$ wasted on them. How could the judge know if a bored juror is just daydreaming/napping with eyes open when he/she is just sitting still? At least they showed they were awake when solving the puzzles.:idea:
udosuk
 
Posts: 2698
Joined: 17 July 2005

Postby enxio27 » Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:25 pm

The assumption in the case of these jurors was that they were not paying attention to the evidence while they were playing sudoku. That is not necessarily true.

I find I listen better when I have something to keep my hands busy, whether it's doodling, needlework, or whatever, and yes, sudoku. My husband frowns on it because it looks bad, but I've been known to work a sudoku puzzle or two in church, and find that I actually remember the sermon better when I do.

One semester while I was in college, I found it convenient to work on my calculus homework while I was in my history class and vice versa. One was words; the other numbers, and they didn't get mixed up in my head. I ended up with As (top marks) in both classes, and it turned out to be my best semester, grade-wise.
User avatar
enxio27
 
Posts: 289
Joined: 13 November 2007

Postby DonM » Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:54 pm

enxio27 wrote:The assumption in the case of these jurors was that they were not paying attention to the evidence while they were playing sudoku. That is not necessarily true.


Being a juror requires not just listening to the evidence, but also observing the witnesses as they give testimony for mannerisms, general demeanor and anything else that can determine the level of credibility. Pretty hard to do that while solving a sudoku puzzle.

In the end, people have to ask themselves- if they were the one on trial, would they be happy if they saw that some of the jurors were busily solving a puzzle?
DonM
2013 Supporter
 
Posts: 475
Joined: 13 January 2008

Postby wintder » Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:46 am

DonM wrote:
enxio27 wrote:The assumption in the case of these jurors was that they were not paying attention to the evidence while they were playing sudoku. That is not necessarily true.


Being a juror requires not just listening to the evidence, but also observing the witnesses as they give testimony for mannerisms, general demeanor and anything else that can determine the level of credibility. Pretty hard to do that while solving a sudoku puzzle.

In the end, people have to ask themselves- if they were the one on trial, would they be happy if they saw that some of the jurors were busily solving a puzzle?


DonM, I don't agree with your points in an absolute sense.

Jurors are people, some have social kills some don't.

Second point, I might be very happy, if as a defendant, the jurors were "asleep", who can say?

Bottom line is the judge who rules the courtroom, the jurors were lucky not to do jail time for contempt of court.


I have done jury duty 3 times in Canada and don't consider this story credible.
wintder
 
Posts: 297
Joined: 24 April 2007

Postby udosuk » Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:43 pm

wintder wrote:I have done jury duty 3 times in Canada and don't consider this story credible.

It's a true story, reported in the local news on TV here.

Here is a more detailed article.

And according to this link they won't be punished at all.
udosuk
 
Posts: 2698
Joined: 17 July 2005

Postby wintder » Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:27 pm

Wow!

Mr Morison said it was extraordinary that 105 witnesses, including 20 police, had been in the witness box and not seen what was happening


It seems like nearly nobody was paying attention.:D
wintder
 
Posts: 297
Joined: 24 April 2007

Postby stumble » Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:35 am

I wonder if you could get out of jury duty if you took some Sudokus with you on your initial call-up?
stumble
 
Posts: 52
Joined: 29 October 2007

Postby DonM » Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:03 am

wintder wrote:
DonM wrote:
enxio27 wrote:The assumption in the case of these jurors was that they were not paying attention to the evidence while they were playing sudoku. That is not necessarily true.


Being a juror requires not just listening to the evidence, but also observing the witnesses as they give testimony for mannerisms, general demeanor and anything else that can determine the level of credibility. Pretty hard to do that while solving a sudoku puzzle.

In the end, people have to ask themselves- if they were the one on trial, would they be happy if they saw that some of the jurors were busily solving a puzzle?


DonM, I don't agree with your points in an absolute sense.

Jurors are people, some have social kills some don't.

Second point, I might be very happy, if as a defendant, the jurors were "asleep", who can say?

Bottom line is the judge who rules the courtroom, the jurors were lucky not to do jail time for contempt of court.


I have done jury duty 3 times in Canada and don't consider this story credible.


Since the judge does rule the courtroom and 'the jurors were lucky not to do jail time for contempt of court', it seems that the judge has the same requirement as to the attention to testimony as I do. It doesn't take special 'social skills' for the average individual to use visual information to help determine testimony credibility and by far most defendants don't want juror's to be asleep especially if there is a lot of evidence against them- the dozing juror would tend to vote with the majority. Besides, if you've been on jury duty 3 times and your take on it has led to your comments above, I wouldn't want to be on a Canadian jury- and I'm a born Canadian.
DonM
2013 Supporter
 
Posts: 475
Joined: 13 January 2008

Postby wintder » Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:16 pm

DonM wrote:
wintder wrote:
DonM wrote:
enxio27 wrote:The assumption in the case of these jurors was that they were not paying attention to the evidence while they were playing sudoku. That is not necessarily true.


Being a juror requires not just listening to the evidence, but also observing the witnesses as they give testimony for mannerisms, general demeanor and anything else that can determine the level of credibility. Pretty hard to do that while solving a sudoku puzzle.

In the end, people have to ask themselves- if they were the one on trial, would they be happy if they saw that some of the jurors were busily solving a puzzle?


DonM, I don't agree with your points in an absolute sense.

Jurors are people, some have social kills some don't.

Second point, I might be very happy, if as a defendant, the jurors were "asleep", who can say?

Bottom line is the judge who rules the courtroom, the jurors were lucky not to do jail time for contempt of court.


I have done jury duty 3 times in Canada and don't consider this story credible.


Since the judge does rule the courtroom and 'the jurors were lucky not to do jail time for contempt of court', it seems that the judge has the same requirement as to the attention to testimony as I do. It doesn't take special 'social skills' for the average individual to use visual information to help determine testimony credibility and by far most defendants don't want juror's to be asleep especially if there is a lot of evidence against them- the dozing juror would tend to vote with the majority. Besides, if you've been on jury duty 3 times and your take on it has led to your comments above, I wouldn't want to be on a Canadian jury- and I'm a born Canadian.


You have the bottom line. I NEVER want jury duty again.
wintder
 
Posts: 297
Joined: 24 April 2007


Return to General