What qualifies any on this jury to KNOW the smell of decomp? How would they know what they are smelling to compare it to?
But that's just the point - the jury isn't expected to be qualified experts on ANYthing. Yet they are still shown each piece of evidence. Are they experts on chromatograms? No, but they were shown one yesterday as proof or example of what the expert witness was telling them. Are they experts in hair root banding? No, but they were still shown pictures of root banding as example of what the expert was telling them.
The jury isn't meant to critically evaluate any of the physical evidence as if they are experts - they are still shown and played this evidence. Why? Why not just have an expert testify that a video was made in which ICA was angry, and the jurors should just take his word for it. That certainly didn't happen - they were shown the video so they could experience this anger for themselves. Why didn't that "make them witnesses"? They were allowed to listen the the 911 calls and witness CA's grief - rather than just hear expert testimony that "Cindy called 911 and was upset".
The logical part of my mind tells me that there should not be discrimination in the physical senses the jury is allowed to use to experience the evidence. Some evidence folks are testifying about is visual - movies, pictures, surveillance tapes, graphs and charts, all allowed in - and some evidence testified about his auditory (recorded phone calls, 911 tapes also allowed in) - and some evidence testified about is olfactory (the car trunk - not allowed in). I think it's odd to draw the line in a court of law that X and Y senses are allowed for the jury but not Z sense.
Pros of letting them experience this evidence:
- It's fair and in line with the rest of their exposure to evidence they've heard testimony about.
- Part of the defense strategy is in dismissing this very smell as pizza, chicken or banana - part of the State's strategy is in pointing out that someone called 911 because of this smell, because they could not dismiss it as trash.
- The smell does indeed "stick in your nose and throat" for days. Each piece of testimony presented after that would have the background of decomposing flesh to it. Each moment they would be reminded that the trial is not about boob touching or wikipedia pages, but about a child that died and was treated abominably. (this is also in the "con" column for the exact same reasons...) When they hear about the dogs "hitting" on a scent in the yard, when they are shown the stain in the trunk (that JB will tell them is a pizza outline) they will have evidence in their own nose and throat that tells them differently (again, making this a "con" as well)
Cons:
- It would affect each of them forever, perhaps make some of them unable to serve, certainly unable to eat for a few days, perhaps unable to sleep - and none of the jurors deserve that. Caylee (and I suppose even KC) deserve jurors who can be fair minded and alert when they evaluate the evidence.
- Because of the nature of the evidence and the potential for the harm to the jurors wellbeing, and the potential for this to emotionally sway them rather than making choices based on ALL the evidence, I think this would be a completely valid argument for an appeal and retrial, therefore making it completely unacceptable.
- With all the evidence, they don't need this additional link in the chain. I don't think the jurors disbelieve the smell, the chemicals of the smell, or the linking of the smell to human decomp. They are probably already convinced and likely to become more so.
All told I think the Cons far outweigh the Pros and they should not be required to smell the evidence.
I still believe attorneys should have the right to introduce smells into evidence in the general sense, but in this case I think they'd be smart to read the jury, understand whether they need what is in effect a physical/emotional atomic bomb, and keep it to themselves if they don't absolutely need it. Which IMO they do not.