Yes there are instructions for the jury - which I have listed on other posts and they specifically instruct the jurors to only use evidence admitted in court or testified about. The man's walk to the stand and the lady's marks on the nose would be out of their scope - as well as Klugman acting as an expert. Of course the obvious misconduct would be the knife and the investigation into the knife.
This is it in case anyone interested so they don't have to find it - long but interesting an on point with the movie:
Straight from NYS courts:
Evidence
When you judge the facts you are to consider only the evidence.
The evidence in the case includes:
the testimony of the witnesses,
the exhibits that were received in evidence, [and]
[the stipulation(s) by the parties. (A stipulation is information
the parties agree to present to the jury as evidence, without calling
a witness to testify.)]
Testimony which was stricken from the record or to which an
objection was sustained must be disregarded by you.
Exhibits that were received in evidence are available, upon
your request, for your inspection and consideration.
Exhibits that were just seen during the trial, or marked for
identification but not received in evidence, are not evidence, and
are thus not available for your inspection and consideration.
But, testimony based on exhibits that were not received in
evidence may be considered by you. It is just that the exhibit itself
is not available for your inspection and consideration.
This from NYS courts explains expertise and ordinary knowledge:
JUROR EXPERTISE
In evaluating the evidence and the issues presented, you
should use your common sense, knowledge, and experience, just
as you would in making decisions in your daily life. When I speak
of “knowledge” and “experience” in this context, I mean the sort of
knowledge and experience that an average person would acquire
in life.
Some of you, however, may have something more than
ordinary knowledge or experience in a certain area. Indeed, it may
be that you have developed a special expertise in a certain area,
well beyond what an average person would have.
If you have such a special expertise, and if it relates to some
material issue in this case, it would be wrong for you to rely on that
special expertise to inject into your deliberations either a fact that
is not in evidence or inferable from the evidence, or an opinion that
could not be drawn from the evidence by a person without that
special expertise. The reason it would be wrong to do so is that
you must decide this case only on the evidence presented to you
in this courtroom.
Therefore, with respect to any material issue in this case, you
must not use any special expertise you have to insert into the
deliberations evidence that has not been presented in this
courtroom during the trial.
User Error Please Try Again
reply
share