Trial By NumbersFollow

Yeah, I can see why they'd want to call a mistrial. You really couldn't be sure what the jurors had missed about the evidence. I know that in reality most people in most situations (even this one, probably) can follow what's going on around them, and take their attention away from the puzzle and back to the important bits. But in the case of a criminal trial, it's just too crucial that there is as much a guarantee as possible that the court proceedings have the undivided attention of the jurors.

2 months, the trial went for, dozens of witnesses, including over 20 police witnesses! >.<


That's a lot of effort to abort!!!

Edited, Jun 10th 2008 10:12am by Aripyanfar

But do you not suspect people, when being asked to simply sit and listen for up to 8 hours a day, are not daydreaming, snoozing, or otherwise distracted (perhaps inadvertently) enough so that they're not picking up much information?

I was in a training the other day where the guy teaching the class said, on average, people will take away about 12% of the information that is given to them in a day-long training.

The topic came up because one of the women was knitting. The trainer (a professional 'trainer'), was quite content with this and said that at least he knew she was awake.

Think it's possible that some puzzle might actually be keeping the mind engaged enough so that it's more alert and functionable?

Yes. Puzzles and games and reading pretty much anything will distract me sufficiently that I'll have to ask someone to repeat even fairly simple concepts. It's one reason people ******* around with texting and email in meetings drives me crazy if there's actually something on which their attention is required.

Since most meetings would go just as well with about a third of the actual attendees it's fine - it works along the lines of a pacifier to keep them from asking stupid questions (starting with, "What did you say? Sorry.")

Needlework, not so much. It's largely rote and your attention can be divided more easily.

Yeah, rather arbitrarily.

Because having the jury box doing crossword puzzles wouldn't be grounds for appeal. Honestly, get medicated if you can't focus.

That, too. It's the job of the defense attorney to lay the groundwork for appeal everywhere possible, just in case there's a conviction.

With half the jury distracted with puzzle games, a conviction isn't going to happen anyway; but still, it's his job.

Do you honestly believe that knitting, a mechanical action that a hobbyist does millions of times, compares to a unique puzzle configuration that requires dynamic evaluation? 'Cause I don't.

It's the trail of evidence!

Yeah, the thread title made me think it would be about the election and polls.

Nexa

Knitting requires you to keep a count. Sometimes a LARGE count. You lose count you have to go back and recount from the beginning of a row. Sudoku comes as easily to my brain as knitting likely did to my mothers...and you never need count beyond 9.

Either way, there was no evidence to suggest that these jurors were not able to accuratley assess the case. I suspect, your first suggestion was more on track. The judge was either simply pissed off, or didn't want to have to deal with questions and a possible retrial because the defendant actually witnessed the juror with a puzzle.

I sat as a juror a couple of years ago, some teenager was accused of having brutally beaten the crap out of some girl he was living with. It went on for about 2 weeks, and the kid was facing jail if found guilty. I took it all extremely seriously. There is no way on God's green earth that I would've done Sudoku or crosswords during the trial. From a legal point of view, obviously it's enough to constitute a mis-trial. It's every defence lawyer's dream.

From a "moral/ethical" point of view, it's absolutely disgraceful. If you have ADD and can't stand to sit still and listen for a few hours in a row, then get excused on medical grounds. You're playing around with someone's life, the least you can do is at least to pretend you're listening.

In my case, some of the jurors really didn't care that much, they probably thought it would like on TV with grandiose orators and supermodel prosecution lawyers. Which is inevitable, I guess. When we came to the deliberation, some people said absolutely nothing, they just nodded their heads whenever they thought someone was watchgin them. None of this was great, but at least they had the decency to pretend they cared. There were maybe 5 of us who really paid attention during the trial, and debated the facts and the law during deliberation. The rest pretty much plodded along.

If you're intrested, we couldn't convict the kid. Both the accuser and defendant were heavy crack-users/dealers, living together. The girl's testimony didn't match the pictures of her injuries, by a long-shot. She claimed she was repeatedly punched in the face, had a couple of chairs broken over her, and was then kicked in the face until she lost consciousness. And yet, the pictures taken a couple of hours after the incident didn't look so bad. She had a bruised eye and a cut under the other eye, but that was about it. She clearly exagerated what had happened to her, which meant we had a "doubt" as to her claims, which meant we had to release the guy. Eventhough he did beat her up.

It was a weird feeling, which would've only been enhanced had I been playing Sudoku through-out.

Which reminds me Nobby, about a lawyer.

Of course, it's so hard to find a decent dealer in South London these days.

Of course there was, they were busy doing something else during the trial.

Otherwise, it's the circus. If Sudoku and knitting is ok, then surely the DS brain training is fine too. Or reading a Micheal Crichton book, like The Firm, cos you know, it's legal and stuff. Or having a ****. I can **** and focus on the screen at the same time, so why not do it in court?

I'm not sure there's ever been a study regarding the deleterious effect of working puzzles while serving on a jury; or ever would be. For one thing the study itself, fraught with the very real possibility of causing a miscarriage of justice, would be unethical.

There have, however, been numerous studies re: the effect of distractions of all types on concentration and task-oriented mental functioning. Look them up yourself.