After a trial, it is common for attorneys and sometimes the judge, to meet with jurors who want to ask questions about the trial they have just been through.  It is a learning experience for the attorneys and jurors. Often the questions are about things they were not told during the trial, such as whether the defendant had been previously convicted of similar crimes, or about certain aspects of the trial procedure, or about the evidence.

The Supreme Court has received a request, from a criminal defense lawyers’ association, for a new court rule that would make it a violation for prosecutors or law enforcement persons to talk to jurors after the trial about evidence that was suppressed.   The reason given was that if jurors know that they were not allowed to hear everything, it might make people have less confidence in the justice system.  The Supreme Court has requested comment from the prosecutors association on the proposed rule.

It is hardly news that jurors are not allowed to hear certain things when they are listening to the evidence in a case. Both sides file motions before the trial asking the court to allow or not allow certain evidence. Except in a very few circumstances, jurors are not allowed to hear things like: the past criminal convictions of witnesses or the defendant, things that could be prejudicial (such as the religion of the defendant), marital status, parentage, or citizenship.  Such things are usually excluded because they really do not help jurors decide the case and might lead them to make a decision on the basis of some prejudice rather than the evidence. The rules governing what is admitted into evidence at trial are designed to aid in the pursuit of a just result.  The judge decides such issues before the trial.

The proposed rule would not allow prosecutors to tell jurors about things that were not allowed into evidence during the trial. Because we have open courtrooms, one of the results would be  that people who sit in the courtroom for the pre-trial motions would know all about the evidence that was kept away from the jury, jurors could not be told about those things, even after the trial was over!

In my opinion, this proposal makes no sense.  A jury trial is and should be a search for the truth.  It is a process where only evidence that helps a jury make a decision and yet is also fair to the defendant, is presented.  After the trial is over, jurors should be able to ask questions and get answers.  This includes why some evidence was not admitted.  Jurors can understand this.  In my experience, jurors want to make correct decisions based on proper evidence.  To have a rule that makes it wrong to tell jurors about suppressed evidence after the trial is over, does not build confidence in the justice system; it tears it down. Providing information, not hiding it, builds confidence.   I hope that the Supreme Court does not enact the rule.