Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Budget intrigue
Next Post: No respect
Posted in:
* The setup, which is from the Tony Rezko trial…
During deliberations Thursday, U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve received two notes from the jury. […]
The second note requested a transcript of testimony from a prosecution witness, which was denied. As is typical in such requests, St. Eve sent back a note telling the jurors to “rely on your collective recollection of the testimony” for all witnesses.
* Question: Is this policy wise?
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, May 16, 08 @ 2:36 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Budget intrigue
Next Post: No respect
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Do judges get to review transcripts when making decisions in non-jury cases? If so, then it is unwise and unfair.
Comment by Lindsay Friday, May 16, 08 @ 3:01 am
I once had to testify under oath at a lawyer’s office for what is called a deposition. I actually had to request a copy of the transcript because they don’t normally send you one to check it for it’s accuracy. I was glad that I did. The transcript omitted several pertinent facts that I had stated under oath. The defense lawyer who had me come to his office to testify under oath seemed to have hired the world’s worst stenographer or whatever they called her. Either that or he was paying her under the table to deliberately omitt and mangle key statements. It also had an incorrect quote from me concerning a land value. The value stated in the transcript was 1/10th of that which I had stated under oath. I can easily understand why a judge would be very hesitant to allow jurors to rely on these often inaccurate transcripts. They are often 90% accurate but that remaining 10% is critical to the truth being told accurately.
Comment by Mad Max Friday, May 16, 08 @ 6:04 am
The judge, the lawyers, and the parties in the case have access to witness transcripts, but the deciders of the case don’t. What sense does that make?
Comment by irish 7 Friday, May 16, 08 @ 6:11 am
If the testimony was allowed the is that not evidence in the case? Why would it not be allowed?
Comment by Dan S, a Voter & Cubs Fan Friday, May 16, 08 @ 7:11 am
Eeeeeek… the request probably came from juror A saying
“he said Rezko DID accept the money”
Juror B said “no he didn’t, he said Rezko did NOT accept the money”
Juror C said “I don’t know, I missed that”
Juror D said “let’s just move on, I’m tired”
Juror E said “no, this is important… did he sayRezko took it or not?”
Juror F said “let’s ask for a transcript - this is important”
Comment by North of I-80 Friday, May 16, 08 @ 7:20 am
In all fairness to BOTH sides, the jury should have access to all documentation, especially the transcripts!
Comment by South of I-80 Friday, May 16, 08 @ 7:30 am
I once sat on a jury in which we requested a medical record. The judged denied our request; turns out it was not part of the evidence. If that wasthe case, why allow it to be mentioned during trial? Serving on a jury is tough enough without being hamstrung by relying on collective memory. Juries should be given access to all transcripts/evidence they need to make a decision.
Comment by Rod sez I'm pork Friday, May 16, 08 @ 7:36 am
Rich, you are up and about early today. Good to have reading available for the early birds. thanks.
Comment by Anon Friday, May 16, 08 @ 7:37 am
Capt Fax probably never went to bed
The Judge is ALWAYS right
Comment by Reddbyrd Friday, May 16, 08 @ 7:58 am
I think the policy is short-sighted. Over a long trial like this, certainly the vaunted jurist St. Eve can’t expect ordinary folks posing as jurors to remember everything.
If her fear is that jurors will see answers/questions that were objected to by the lawyers, redact the material.
Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Friday, May 16, 08 @ 8:05 am
bad policy. The reason behind it is that Jurors will give more weight to the transcript as if it is a perfect recording, but it may contain errors. A missed not or no can completly change th meaning of a sentence from a negative to a positive, and transcriptionsts make mistakes.
However I think we need to stop treating jurors like chidlren. Tell them, worrds to the effect, that the transcript may be wrong, and if it conflicts with their own memory they should go with their recollection.
Comment by Ghost Friday, May 16, 08 @ 8:21 am
Why have court reporters if there is no access to the notes..stupid. What is it with Fed Judges and screwing up?
Comment by Wumpus Friday, May 16, 08 @ 8:22 am
Wumpus Fed Judges tend to tbe the best judges out there.
Comment by Ghost Friday, May 16, 08 @ 8:32 am
The jury should definately have access to the transcript and the exhibits. What would happen if they made a decision because of the innacurate memory of a juror or two. If you want the best result, give them the tools.
Comment by Silent Majority Friday, May 16, 08 @ 8:36 am
Good policy. Allowing access to transcripts (which may or may not be accurate) would only serve to lengthen jury deliberations (as every point would be debated to no end in the jury room), and would put too much emphasis on the words spoken to the detriment of credibility issues that are reduced to paper (such as how the witness behaved, whether he or she took a long time to answer, etc.) No one has ever said that the jury system is perfect - and this wouldn’t make it so (or even better, in my opinion).
Comment by Canseco Friday, May 16, 08 @ 8:37 am
There is a reason this is done. This is a lawyer-filled room. If this is not a good idea, there are probably 341 people in the room to yell about it.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, May 16, 08 @ 8:42 am
The spoken word during a trial is evidence just as much as a smoking gun or a document. I don’t understand the inconsistency here. If a jury wants to examine the murder weapon, they are allowed to do so. Why not allow a review of the transcript? If a case is subsequently appealed, the transcript would be eligible for review, would it not?
Comment by One of the 35 Friday, May 16, 08 @ 8:50 am
I think one of the considerations is time. The trial transcript would be thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of pages. The jury would deliberate for months.
Which leads to the second consideration. The jury would be prone to “retrying” the case via the transcripts, analysing everything, missing things such as body language and tone of voice, etc. That’s why they’re supposed to take notes (such as, “the witness looked us in the eyes, for most of his testimony, but didn’t (and was nervous) when he said …”
It’s a good call. You let one transcript in, how do you refuse them all of it?
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Friday, May 16, 08 @ 9:01 am
No. Why would we not want the jurors to decide a case on what the ACTUAL testimony instead what may be a false recollection? This isn’t a game! Peoples lives are at stake. I believe that Tony Rezko is probably guilty but if he’s convicted, I want it to be based on actual evidence and actual testimony, not some misconceived memory by a member or members of the jury. A false memory can be contagious. I also don’t think that it would be such a bad thing if judges were included in the recall amendment of the IL constitution.
Comment by ImTellenYou Friday, May 16, 08 @ 9:02 am
== Good policy. Allowing access to transcripts (which may or may not be accurate) would only serve to lengthen jury deliberations ==
I say lengthen the deliberations as much as is needed in order to get the proper verdict. This case is too important to the direction of this state for Jurors to be denied a request for information that was allowed during testimony.
This seems to be a disservice to not only the jury but to the people of Illinois.
Comment by Speaking At Will Friday, May 16, 08 @ 9:05 am
What the hell good is this stupid policy if it ends up causing a hung jury? It will mean having to go thru the same circus a second time.
Comment by fedup dem Friday, May 16, 08 @ 9:08 am
Can you imagine 12 people trying to agree on what was said? Funny.
Comment by Shelbyville Friday, May 16, 08 @ 9:12 am
As somebody who tries cases for a living:
I’ve never understood this general rule. If testimony or a document was admitted, send it back to the jury.
Certain documents are referenced but not admitted into evidence (medical bills often contain info that makes sending them back a problem) and in that case, of course it should not go back.
For a two week to three week trial, I will typically spend about two months prepping (that’s just prep — not deposing anyone or engaging in any new discovery). I have to do that so that I know the testimony in enough detail to get before that jury to try the case. How can we possibly expect a jury who knows nothing about the case prior to walking into the courthouse to be able to sort out what was heard?
Comment by Skeeter Friday, May 16, 08 @ 9:17 am
One more note — I’ve never tried a criminal case, and I’ve never tried a case before this judge, so there may be rules that I’m not aware of.
That being said — typically when a request comes in, the judge will call in counsel, advise them of the request, and then counsel will advise as to any objection to sending the stuff back. Pretty often counsel agrees to do it, which of course makes me wonder if the judge alone declined the request or if one of the attorneys objected.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, May 16, 08 @ 9:24 am
I suspect it’s as wise as any other. Having covered courts and served on an excruciatingly stupid jury, I’d take my chance with a judge anytime — if I were innocent.
As Mr. Twain said:
We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don’t know anything and can’t read.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, May 16, 08 @ 9:37 am
That policy surprises me. What is the point of that. Shouldn’t the jury system value accuracy and not just consensus?
I strongly disagree with that policy. Perhaps a judge or lawyer can convince me otherwise, but it doesn’t make sense to me right now.
Comment by Napoleon has left the building Friday, May 16, 08 @ 9:39 am
Usually the transcript is not prepared on a daily basis, and what’s called ‘daily copy’ is very expensive. The new instant computerized versions of daily copy are rife with errors - I recall the computer once got an answer “neah” by the witness as “yeah”. The real objection to this is that the transcript of a particular witness will be given undue weight versus other witnesses, simply because it is in writing and was requested by one juror. It would lead to the jury wanting the transcript of the whole trial, which would take forever. The trial judge does have discretion here, however.
Comment by Legal Eagle Friday, May 16, 08 @ 9:53 am
Could the judge’s decision be grounds for a subsequent appeal?
Comment by SuperDave Friday, May 16, 08 @ 9:54 am
Bad idea, although transcripts can contain some real whoppers. My favorite is a when one of Rich’s favorite people, Dawn Clark Netsch, denounced an amendatory veto by Governor Thompson as a “user patient” (according to the transcript) of the General Assembly’s authority.
Still, for the jurors to be able to use the transcript to refresh their memories is entirely a good thing. They’ll still recall the tone of voice, mannerisms, etc. that don’t show up in the transcripts, and in criminal trials, I say let them take their time and get it right.
Comment by Anon Friday, May 16, 08 @ 9:55 am
I agree with Legal Eagle and others.
Sending back a transcript to the jury is both expensive and extraordinarily time consuming.
The jury is given notepads and paper, and are instructed to pay close attention to the key parts of the case. Any lawyer capable of trying a case of this magnitude will help the jury understand when the crucial parts of the case are coming up.
Lastly, the transcript, while being inaccurate and sloppy, also has a bunch of information on it that the jury is not supposed to consider. Can you imagine going through 6,000 pages of transcript with a black marker to redact all of the objectionable material?
Comment by Chicago Law Student Friday, May 16, 08 @ 10:03 am
They were asking for the entire trial.
They asked for one witness.
This was live testimony so there should not have been much to redact (as opposed to an evidence deposition where it is a mess).
Go through the testimony, see if the transcript is accurate, and send it over.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, May 16, 08 @ 10:12 am
The policy is okay, but only if the jury is instructed before the trial begins that transcripts will not be provided and that they need to take notes because of it.
Comment by A Citizen Friday, May 16, 08 @ 10:19 am
Instead of giving them carte blanche, why not have the jury request specific excerpts of the transcripts?
Comment by South of I-80 Friday, May 16, 08 @ 10:29 am
Ghost, I know Fed Judges are usually the cream of the crap. I don’t understand this reasoning. I was also commenting on the procedural issues with the george Ryan trial
Comment by Wumpus Friday, May 16, 08 @ 10:29 am
I believe that the theory behind refusing transcripts is that attentive jurors can arrive at a just decision better than inattentive jurors.
To that end, the no transcript policy is intended to spur jurors to take their own notes. Taking one’s own notes requires a degree of attention that would not be necessary if one could rely on a transcript at the end of the trial.
I’m not saying it’s an effective policy — I suspect that irresponsible jurors will be irresponsible regardless of access to a transcript — but it is an understandable one.
– SCAM
so-called “Austin Mayor”
http://austinmayor.blogspot.com
Comment by so-called "Austin Mayor" Friday, May 16, 08 @ 10:54 am
Well, I can’t comment on whether or not this is bad or good policy or if it is policy at all- but I think one can deduct from this that it is pretty bad news for Rezko.
The witness, a Rezko business partner, basically confirms that Rezko was all about manipulating the board and scamming finders fees. Then you add the Pekin testimony and you’ve got the case cold. Rezko goes to jail.
This is bad news because it says that the jury is taking into account all the testimony not just Levine’s testimony. That also means they are looking at the wire taps- which are also totally bad news for Rezko. Basically Duffy’s efforts to marginalize Levine, and make the case about him, didn’t work.
This is just tea leaf reading but…
Comment by GofGelnview Friday, May 16, 08 @ 11:06 am
Shelbyville -
“Can you imagine 12 people trying to agree on what was said? Funny.”
totally like the kid game telephone…
Comment by GofGelnview Friday, May 16, 08 @ 11:08 am
Why not a video, so they can just replay the parts they are not sure about.
Comment by Cassandra Friday, May 16, 08 @ 11:12 am
These days, I should think it would be a good thing if the testimony (not sidebars) made in front of the jury were recorded and that jurors could have controlled access. Even juror notes are sometimes inaccurate and worse, after three months, ilegible.
Comment by Truthful James Friday, May 16, 08 @ 11:34 am
It’s 2008 for god’s sake, can’t the court room proceedings attempt to crawl out from beneath the luddite rock?
We spend gobs of taxpayer money all kinds of suveilance technology to make these cases but when it comes to an actual decision we tell a bunch of people who admittedly don’t know what’s going on (that’s how they got on the jury): “Sorry, hope you were paying attention.”
What a system.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Friday, May 16, 08 @ 11:40 am
SCAM notes BTW are optional. Not sure if they let the Rezko jury take notes. Many judges don’t like notes because the jury is not paying attention to the witness - their demeanor while testifying - obsconed in scribbling donw what is spoken.
A “good” Juror is one who is not ensconed in their notebook but is attempting to whatch the witness’s.
If they do have notes their may be a conflict in how the jurors recorded certain comments, and the transcript may help clear it up. What we are really pushing is a higher probablity of a mistake using notes then allowing them to access the transcript.
Comment by Ghost Friday, May 16, 08 @ 12:28 pm
Don’t know the legal reasoning underlying the judge’s decsion, but common sense suggests that jurors should have selective access to transcripts to facilitete their recollection and discussion of relevant testimony, particularly if it is a long trial with lots of witnesses. Some juror disagreements coul;d easily be resolved by reference to pertinent testimony.
Comment by Captain America Friday, May 16, 08 @ 12:52 pm
Bad policy - and here’s why. In the Chandra Levy scandal, it was noted
” And according to an overlooked passage in a recent Washington Post profile of Susan Levy, by her own admission Levy “suffers from auditory dyslexia: Sometimes words and conversations get mixed up in her mind.”"
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/07/martin/print.html
Transcripts would be a good idea - might prevent some hung juries / erroneous verdicts.
Comment by Smitty Irving Friday, May 16, 08 @ 1:31 pm
Question for a lawyer: is such a decision by the judge grounds for appeal or aquital- is this regular practice?
Comment by GofGelnview Friday, May 16, 08 @ 2:06 pm
For the record, neither the prosecution or defense objected to the judge’s rulling. So, there would be no grounds for appeal.
Comment by reporter Friday, May 16, 08 @ 2:11 pm
GofGelnview, short answer, it would most likely not be a succesful ground for an appeal. (nothing keeps them from arguing it)
Comment by Ghost Friday, May 16, 08 @ 2:14 pm
Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 16, 08 @ 2:14 pm
Bottom line, if the judge were on trial, would they want their fate to rest on the recollection of a jury that had been impanelled for sooo… long? Also, if one were found guilty on the basis of the “recollection” of the jury, instead of actual transcript records could this be used as the basis of an appeal, if the recollection proved to be, as George Bush would say “misremembered” ?
Comment by Sweet Polly Purebred Friday, May 16, 08 @ 2:21 pm
Is it possible to surmise that Rezko’s crew didn’t want a review of his testimony?
Comment by GofGelnview Friday, May 16, 08 @ 2:23 pm
SPP, short answer, you only get the end result from the jury. The record will never reveal why they made their decision. Jury deliberations are not recorded or available on appeal (generally).
I always thought this may be a bad policy as well, particuarly in a criminal case! Hide the juror identity, but make a record of their deliberations. If they did base their entire decision on a substantial and clearly mistaken point, you should be able to argue this point since imprisonment is such a drastic conclusion.
Comment by Ghost Friday, May 16, 08 @ 2:47 pm
I don’t have a strong view on the appropriateness of the policy. Given the judge’s good reputation, it’s unlikely that she arrived at this decision arbitrarily. I can certainly see where providing transcripts (en masse) to the jury in any major trial could delay the verdict, as the transcripts could easily become the focus of the deliberation to the exclusion of all other evidence. Providing portions of transcripts could pose another problem, as does the cost and imperfection of the daily transcripts.
Overall, the judge’s postion seems defensible. I hope that she gave the jury some indication at the outset that the transcripts wouldn’t be available so that they could take (or not take) notes accordingly.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Friday, May 16, 08 @ 4:51 pm
Not if any of them are over 60!
Comment by Disgusted Friday, May 16, 08 @ 7:27 pm