Editorial: Jurors’ questions in dispute

Friday, May 19, 2000 | 9:45 a.m.

In 1998 the Nevada Supreme Court gave its blessing to the controversial practice of allowing jurors to ask written questions during District Court trials. Still, as the Sun's Kim Smith reported earlier this week, there hasn't been a rush to do so in Clark County, with just Judge Mark Gibbons allowing questions. While Gibbons' application of this novel procedure has received praise, there are some questions as to whether this practice in and of itself can harm the ability of a defendant to get a fair trial.

Opponents of juror questions argue that the current system of having jurors sit silently, and then weigh all the evidence after the facts are presented, has worked well over the past two centuries and shouldn't be changed. Defense attorneys particularly worry that juror questions could lead to their clients not getting a fair trial. Since either the defense or prosecution can, in effect, veto a query by objecting, some defense attorneys say that their clients might get punished if they believe the defense attorney stopped a question from being asked. In addition, attorneys are concerned that by allowing a juror to ask a question, that individual then is forming an opinion about the case prior to hearing all the evidence in a case.

Advocates of the practice believe that providing additional information can only serve to aid the aim of a trial, which is getting at the truth of what happened. And they add that attorneys are human, sometimes failing to ask a pertinent question that a jury might find helpful in deciding a case. Supporters of juror questions also note that the Nevada Supreme Court established safeguards to minimize the risk that a defendant might not get a fair trial. For example, if one of the attorneys objects to the question, that must be done outside the presence of a jury so as not to prejudice the juror.

Courts often are slow to adopt needed changes, so innovation certainly shouldn't be discouraged. But at the same time, a radical departure, such as letting jurors ask questions, should be reassessed to ensure that this isn't harming the ability of defendants to get a fair trial. It would be beneficial for the Nevada Supreme Court to periodically review the use of juror questions, gauging whether they are being implemented fairly and actually aid in truth-seeking during trials.