This is stupidness on a stick. If you are on a jury (like I was) and you don’t know all the ramifications of words that are being used in the trial that can result in someone losing their Liberty, wouldn’t this be the CORRECT thing to do – learn what the words MEAN???
Emphasis mine, reformatted:
A judge declared a mistrial Tuesday in the criminal case against Mark Kimball, the disrupter of a Black Lives Matter rally in Manchester, after a juror went online to look up definitions of words used in the trial. The trial was in its second day at Hillsborough County Superior Court, where witnesses testified that Kimball, 20, and his father drew handguns as BLM rally participants confronted them in May 2020. Witnesses said the two disturbed a moment of silence with Manchester police for George Floyd, who was killed while in Minneapolis police custody.
Kimball faced three felony charges of criminal threatening.
Jurors looked up two words — “provocation” and “aggressor” — according to a source. The jury had asked Superior Court Judge Will Delker for the definition of “provocation,” but still looked up both words themselves, a source said…Throughout the trial, the judge repeatedly instructed them not to consult outside sources or do research on their own, she said. “Unfortunately in this case, the Court found that a juror was able to inappropriately access their phone and use the internet during deliberations,” Warner said. The juror will not be punished, she said.
I went through the same thing on my time on a jury – the more I blog, the more I appreciate that words should be meaningful and exact (exactly the opposite of what the Left desires in fulfilling its political agenda). Just like what is the meaning of “should“?
Words in American English are often “overloaded” – they have multiple meanings depending on the context of a conversation or issue and if someone isn’t up to speed, it can mean a puzzled face at times.
I was sorely tempted to do the same as the juror above (no, I didn’t but our phones weren’t taken away, either, so the temptation was high).
We had asked the Judge to define some words but when you get somewhat of a circular definition or a definition that STILL can have several meanings based on nuance, it makes you want to scream.
He gave his definitions in about 10 seconds and then left the courtroom; some of us looked at each other as if to say “that was a waste of time. I don’t know any more than when he came out.”
From my viewpoint, the juror was correct. He wasn’t looking up the case itself – just definitions so as to make a correct decision. Isn’t that important because such decisions can hang on a single thread of a definition or usage?
Like I said, stupidness on a stick. Or in this case, gavel.
(H/T: Union Leader)
