oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,714
The major argument against juror questions is that many courts feels it puts the burden of proof on the jurors and takes it away from the prosecution. The jurors become active "solvers" rather than "evaluators" of presented evidence. If the burden of proof is on the prosecutor it's his/her job to prove the case without help from the jury.
I personally like the juror questions but above is a big reason it doesn't happen elsewhere.
I actually think it is good for the jurors. The jurors are the triers of fact and they also carry the burden when coming to the determination of Guilt or NG. The more they know and the more their questions are answered.... the better, imo.
imo