Marantz4250b
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Messages
- 2,748
- Reaction score
- 13,847
I'm not, to be honest. The jury has asked a few questions and on some occasions have been knocked back by the judge. I think they realise now that it's not their place to be asking for clarifications on whats been said or to be given extracts of the evidence, etc. If they don't understand something they can't ask for a witness to clarify or add to their evidence.Exactly so. For me, the principle still stands, whatever the cause. Juries should be questioning every possible evidential anomaly. I’m baffled that in this particular case so few questions have apparently been asked. JMO.
I'm not really sure what sort of questions they could ask, tbh. The evidence is the evidence and has been presented to them. That's what they have available to make their decisions on.