QUESTION:

A cop pulled me over for running a red light, and then he searched me and my car. He didn’t find anything, but I felt humiliated and violated by the whole thing. Was he allowed to do this? Could I have said no?

ANSWER:

A traffic stop is normally just that. If the officer issues you a citation and has no basis to suspect that you are armed and dangerous or involved in criminal activity, the officer cannot search you or your car. Of course, if the officer does see something suspicious, then the law allows the officer to do a “pat-down” search of you and of the passenger compartment of your car. The police officer can also “frisk” (feel the outside of) any purses, bags, or other things in the car that could hold a weapon. But, if you allow the officer to search you or your car, then the search will normally be considered valid — even if there were no solid reasons behind the officer’s request. Many people don’t realize that they can refuse a search. But, as you no doubt know, it’s not easy to say “no” to someone who is wearing a gun and scary reflective glasses.

Be aware, however, that laws in many states authorize police officers to arrest drivers for minor traffic offenses, such as speeding or failure to wear a seat belt. If a police officer does choose to arrest a driver, then the officer can conduct a search.

© 2010 Nolo

A convicted defendant’s punishment need not include prison.

A sentence may involve one or more different elements, including incarceration (prison, jail), probation, restitution (victim compensation), and community service.

Prison Sentences
Some state laws require the judges to impose what are called “determinate” prison sentences. A determinate sentence is a fixed-term sentence pronounced by a judge. For example, a defendant sentenced to “30 days in county jail” or “five years in state prison” has received a determinate sentence.

Other state laws require judges to give “indeterminate sentences.” Indeterminate sentences are those in which the legislature sets a minimum and/or maximum time of incarceration but leaves the decision as to when to release an inmate to prison officials. As a general rule, indeterminate sentences are only imposed on people who are sentenced to state prison after being convicted of a felony.

Suspended Sentences and Probation
Sometimes a defendant’s prison sentence is “suspended.” A suspended sentence is jail or prison time that is put on hold if the defendant complies with certain other obligations, for example, the conditions of probation or the completion of a drug treatment program.

Under a suspended sentence, if the prosecution or probation department can convince a judge that the defendant violated the condition that led to the sentence being suspended in the first place, the judge has authority to order the defendant to serve the original sentence. The probationer is not entitled to a full-blown trial when the question is only whether the defendant violated probation, though the prosecution can choose to also file charges on the incident.

Most states limit when and under what circumstances a court may impose probation on a criminal defendant. For instance, some states do not allow a judge to impose probation on defendants who have a prior conviction for cocaine sales.

Offenders who are put on probation are typically required to adhere to a number of “conditions of probation,” including:

Obey all laws (even petty laws like jaywalking have been known to land a probationer back in jail).
Abide by any court orders, such as an order to pay a fine or restitution.
Report regularly to the probation officer.
Report any change of employment or address to the probation officer.
Abstain from the excessive use of alcohol or the use of any drugs.
Submit to regular alcohol or drug testing.
Refrain from travel outside of the jurisdiction without prior permission of the probation officer.
Avoid certain people and places.
If a probation violation is discovered and reported, it is likely that the court will conduct a probation revocation hearing.

Fines
Fines are a common punishment for a variety of crimes, especially less serious offenses committed by first-time offenders. Offenses that are typically punished by a fine include minor drug possession (of a small amount of marijuana, for example), fish and game violations, shoplifting, traffic violations, and first-time drunk driving cases. In more serious offenses or where the defendant has a criminal record, many judges combine a fine with other punishments, such as incarceration, community service, and probation.

Restitution
While fines go to the state (or federal or local government prosecuting the crime), restitution is money paid by the defendant to the victim or to a state restitution fund. Offenders may be required to return or replace stolen or damaged property, to compensate victims for physical injuries or for medical and psychological treatment costs, or to pay funeral and other costs where a victim dies.

In some cases, the “victim” is society, such as in welfare and Medicare fraud schemes, where defendants may be sentenced to pay the state back the money defrauded. Typically, the defendant will be ordered to pay restitution as just one part of the sentence, in addition to prison, community service, and/or probation.

Community Service
Judges can sentence defendants to perform unpaid community work called “community service” to repay a debt to society for having committed the offense. The defendant may be required to perform community service in addition to receiving some other form of punishment, such as probation, a fine, or restitution.

Miscellaneous “Alternative Sentences”
There are many different types of “alternative sentences,” which can include fairly innovative punishments. Offenders have been required to:

install breathalyzer devices in their cars so that their cars will not start unless the offender has “clean” breath
give lectures or teach classes about the dangers of criminal behavior
attend lectures given by crime victims
complete a drug or alcohol treatment program
do weekend jail time, or
stay at home under “house arrest.”
Diversion
Some cases can be “diverted” out of the criminal justice system. Criminal charges are normally dropped when a defendant successfully completes a diversion program. Diversion gives defendants a chance to escape the stigma of a criminal conviction.

Defendants whose cases are diverted typically have to participate in a treatment or rehabilitation program. Diversion programs are most often available to defendants charged with misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies involving drugs or alcohol. In some jurisdictions, diversion may be available to defendants charged with domestic violence, child abuse or neglect, traffic-related offenses, or even writing bad checks.

Prosecutors sometimes voluntarily offer diversion to defendants who are clearly eligible under a community’s guidelines. Defense counsel may also suggest diversion to prosecutors, sometimes even before formal charges are filed.

© 2010 Nolo

Here are some of the common defenses that criminal defendants can raise to defend against criminal charges.

To convict a criminal defendant, the prosecutor must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As part of this process, the defendant is given an opportunity to present a defense. There are many types of defenses, from “I didn’t do it” to “I did it, but I was too drunk to know what I was doing.” Here are some of the most common defenses that criminal defendants can raise.

The Defendant Didn’t Do It
Most often defendants try to avoid punishment by claiming they did not commit the act in question.

The Presumption of Innocence
All people accused of a crime are legally presumed to be innocent until they are convicted, either in a trial or as a result of pleading guilty. This presumption means not only that the prosecutor must convince the jury of the defendant’s guilt, but also that the defendant need not say or do anything in his own defense. A defendant may simply remain silent, not present any witnesses, and argue that the prosecutor failed to prove his or her case. If the prosecutor can’t convince the jury that the defendant is guilty, the defendant goes free.

Reasonable Doubt
The prosecutor must convince the judge or jury hearing the case that the defendant is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This standard is very hard to meet. As a practical matter, the high burden of proof in criminal cases means that judges and jurors are supposed to resolve all doubts about the meaning of the evidence in favor of the defendant. With such a high standard imposed on the prosecutor, a defendant’s most common defense is often to argue that there is in fact reasonable doubt.

The Alibi Defense
An alibi defense consists of evidence that a defendant was somewhere other than the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. For example, assume that Freddie is accused of committing a burglary on Elm Street at midnight on Friday, September 13. Freddie’s alibi defense might consist of testimony that at the time of the burglary, Freddie was watching Casablanca at the Maple Street Cinema.

The Defendant Did It, But …
Sometimes a defendant can avoid punishment even if the prosecutor shows that that the defendant did, without a doubt, commit the act in question.

Self-Defense
Self-defense is a defense commonly asserted by someone charged with a crime of violence, such as battery (striking someone), assault with a deadly weapon, or murder. The defendant admits that he or she did in fact commit the crime, but claims that it was justified by the other person’s threatening actions. The core issues in most self-defense cases are:

Who was the aggressor?
Was the defendant’s belief that self-defense was necessary a reasonable one?
If so, was the force used by the defendant also reasonable?
Self-defense is rooted in the belief that people should be allowed to protect themselves from physical harm. This means that a person does not have to wait until he or she is actually struck to act in self-defense. If a reasonable person in the same circumstances would think that he or she is about to be physically attacked, that person has the right to strike first and prevent the attack. However, an act of self-defense cannot use more force than is reasonable — someone who uses too much force may be guilty of a crime.

The Insanity Defense
The insanity defense is based on the principle that punishment is justified only if the defendant is capable of controlling his or her behavior and understanding that what he or she has done is wrong. Because some people suffering from a mental disorder are not capable of knowing or choosing right from wrong, the insanity defense prevents them from being criminally punished.

The insanity defense is an extremely complex topic; many scholarly works are devoted entirely to explaining its nuances. Here are some major points of interest:

Despite popular perceptions to the contrary, defendants rarely enter pleas of “not guilty by reason of insanity.” When they do, judges and jurors rarely uphold it.
Various definitions of insanity are in use because neither the legal system nor psychiatrists can agree on a single meaning of insanity in the criminal law context. The most popular definition is the “McNaghten rule,” which defines insanity as “the inability to distinguish right from wrong.” Another common test is known as “irresistible impulse”: a person may know that an act is wrong, but because of mental illness he or she cannot control his or her actions (this person is described as acting out of an “irresistible impulse”).
Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are not automatically set free. They are usually confined to a mental institution until their sanity is established. These defendants can spend more time in a mental institution than they would have spent in prison had they been convicted.
An insanity defense normally rests on the testimony of a psychiatrist, who testifies after examining the defendant, his or her history, and the facts of the case. Courts appoint psychiatrists at government expense to assist poor defendants who cannot afford to hire their own psychiatrists.
Once a defendant raises his or her sanity as a defense, he or she must submit to psychological tests conducted at the behest of the prosecution. This can be a very painful and humiliating experience, one that many defendants choose to forgo rather than rely on the insanity defense.
Under the Influence
Defendants who commit crimes under the influence of drugs or alcohol sometimes argue that their mental functioning was so impaired that they cannot be held accountable for their actions. Generally, however, voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct. Defendants know (or should know) that alcohol and drugs affect mental functioning, and thus they should be held legally responsible if they commit crimes as a result of their voluntary use.

Some states allow an exception to this general rule. If the defendant is accused of committing a crime that requires “specific intent” (intending the precise consequences, as well as intending to do the physical act that leads up to the consequences), the defendant can argue that he was too drunk or high to have formed that intent. This is only a partial defense, however, because it doesn’t entirely excuse the defendant’s actions. In this situation, the defendant will usually be convicted of another crime that doesn’t require proof of a specific intent. For example, a defendant may be prosecuted for the crime of assault with specific intent to kill but only convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, which doesn’t require specific intent.

Entrapment
Entrapment occurs when the government induces a person to commit a crime and then tries to punish the person for committing it. However, if a judge or jury believes that a suspect was predisposed to commit the crime anyway, the suspect may be found guilty even if a government agent suggested the crime and helped the defendant to commit it. Entrapment defenses are therefore especially difficult for defendants with prior convictions for the same type of crime.

To learn more about criminal defenses and all other aspects of a criminal trial, get The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by Paul Bergman and Sara J. Berman-Barrett (Nolo).

© 2010 Nolo

Anyone who intentionally participates in a crime or helps a criminal before or after a crime may be held responsible for the crime under accomplice liability.

People can participate in crimes in different ways and to different degrees. For instance, in a bank robbery, one person may enter the bank and conduct the holdup, while another person is waiting in the getaway car and a third person is positioned at a different location as a spotter.

Principals and Accomplices
As a general rule, the law refers to the main actor in a crime as the principal and to assisting persons as accomplices. Technically, an accomplice is one who intentionally helps another to commit a crime.

Even if an accomplice does not carry out the crime, in the eyes of the law the accomplice’s pre-crime assistance makes him or her just as guilty as the person who does the deed itself. For example, assume that Lars Senny breaks into a warehouse and steals property belonging to the warehouse owner. Hal Perr would be Lars’s accomplice and just as guilty as Lars if Hal takes any of the following steps to assist Lars to commit the theft:

Hal works in the warehouse and drugs the warehouse nightwatchman before leaving work on the day of the theft.
Hal cuts the wires to the burglar alarm (or cuts a hole in the fence) so that Lars can enter the warehouse without being detected.
Hal is a designer of warehouses and meets with Lars a week before the theft to review warehouse layouts and exit routes.
Hal rents a U-Haul and parks it outside the warehouse on the night of the robbery.
Knowing what Lars has in mind, Hal agrees to babysit for Lars’s infant child while Lars goes to the warehouse.
To prove that a defendant is an accomplice, the government must prove that he or she intentionally aided in the commission of a crime. This means that the defendant must realize that the principal is going to commit a crime and that the accomplice intends to help the crime succeed.

Accomplices, Accessories, Aiders and Abettors, and Principals
To distinguish the criminal culpability of one from another, the common law developed specialized terms for the various ways in which one could be an accomplice. For instance, a “principal in the first degree” was the person who actually carried out a crime. A “principal in the second degree” (an “aider and abettor”) was a helper who was present at a crime scene but in a passive role, such as acting as a “lookout.” An “accessory before the fact” was a helper who was not present at the crime scene. While some state laws retain the common law terminology, few states make any distinction between the criminal liability of crime perpetrators and their accomplices. All can be punished equally, whether they actually perpetrate a crime or only help bring it about.

Accessory After the Fact
An accessory after the fact is someone who, knowing that a felon has finished committing a crime (usually the crime has to be a felony), helps the felon avoid arrest or trial. In most states, accessories after the fact face far less punishment than accomplices or principals.

Conspirators
Conspirators are two or more people who agree to commit a crime. (The distinction between accomplices and conspirators is that the former are “helpers,” while each conspirator is a principal.) Conspiracy is a controversial crime, in part because conspirators can be guilty even if the crime that they agree to commit never occurs. As a result, conspirators can be punished for their illegal plans rather than for what they actually do. As some protection against convicting people purely for their private thoughts, in most states conspirators are not guilty of the crime of conspiracy unless at least one of them commits an “overt act.” An “overt act” is an activity that in some way moves a conspiracy into motion.

© 2010 Nolo

What really happens if the police fail to read a suspect his rights.

Many people believe that if they are arrested and not “read their rights,” they can escape punishment. Not true. But if the police fail to read a suspect his or her rights, the prosecutor can’t use anything the suspect says as evidence against the suspect at trial.

Miranda Warnings
Popularly known as the Miranda warning (ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona), a defendant’s rights consist of the familiar litany invoked by TV police immediately upon arresting a suspect:

You have the right to remain silent.
If you do say anything, what you say can be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have that lawyer present during any questioning.
If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you so desire.
If you choose to talk to the police officer, you have the right to stop the interview at any time. (This part of the warning is usually omitted from the screenplay.)
When the Miranda Warning Is Required
It doesn’t matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail, at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or the middle of an open field: If a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way), the police must give a Miranda warning if they want to question the suspect and use the suspect’s answers as evidence at trial.

If a person is not in police custody, however, no Miranda warning is required and anything the person says can be used at trial if the person is later charged with a crime. This exception most often comes up when the police stop someone on the street to question him or her about a recent crime or the person blurts out a confession before the police have an opportunity to deliver the warning.

Pre-Arrest Questioning
People are often surprised to learn that if a person hasn’t yet been arrested, the police may question the person and use the answers in court without first providing the Miranda warning.

Responding to Questions Before an Arrest
Does a person have to respond to police questions if he or she hasn’t been arrested? Generally, no. A police officer generally cannot arrest a person simply for failure to respond to questions.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the “right of silence.” This means that unless a police officer has “probable cause” to make an arrest or a “reasonable suspicion” to conduct a “stop and frisk,” a person approached by the police officer has the legal right to refuse to answer questions. Indeed, a person who has reason to believe that he or she is a potential suspect should politely decline to answer questions, at least until after consulting an attorney.

However, there are several exceptions to this rule.

Loitering. The “right to silence” rule may not hold true if the officer suspects the person of loitering. Laws in effect in many states generally define loitering as “wandering about from place to place without apparent business, such that the person poses a threat to public safety.” Under these laws, if a police officer sees a person loitering, the officer can demand identification and an explanation of the person’s activities. If the person fails to comply, the officer can arrest the person for loitering.

Traffic stops. Another situation where answers to police questions are usually required is when drivers are stopped for suspected traffic violations. An officer has the right to demand personal identification — usually a driver’s license and the vehicle registration. A driver’s refusal to supply the information elevates the situation to a more serious offense, for which the driver usually can be arrested. The simple refusal to answer questions is not a crime, but the refusal to supply identification, combined with the suspected commission of a traffic offense, is.

Stop and Frisk Searches
A “stop and frisk” is when a police officer stops a person to question them and, for self-protection only, carries out a limited pat-down search for weapons (a “frisk”).

A police officer may stop and frisk a person if the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is engaged in criminal activity. This is an easier test for a police officer to meet than the “probable cause” that is required to make an arrest. In one recent U.S. Supreme Court case, the Court ruled that running away from the police is enough of a reason for the police to stop and frisk the defendant.

When frisking a person for weapons, police may feel a suspicious package that the officer knows is commonly used to carry illegal drugs or some other illegal substance. This suspicion may turn into sufficient cause for a more intensive search of the person’s clothing. And, if a search produces an illegal substance, it may result in an arrest.

Post-Arrest Questioning
The almost-universal advice of defense attorneys is to keep the old mouth tightly shut when being questioned after an arrest, at least until after consulting an attorney. Suspects all too frequently unwittingly reveal information that can later be used as evidence of their guilt.

Consequences of Failure to Provide Miranda Warning
Without a Miranda warning, nothing a person says in response to a custodial questioning can be used as evidence against the person at his or her trial. In addition, under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” rule, if the police find evidence as a result of an interrogation that violates the Miranda rule, that evidence is also inadmissible at trial.

For example, if a suspect tells the police where a weapon is hidden and it turns out that the suspect provided this information in response to improper questioning, the police will not be able to use the weapon as evidence — unless the police can prove that they would have found the weapon without the suspect’s statements.

When Police Come Down Too Hard
Information that is voluntarily disclosed to a police officer (after the person has been properly warned) is generally admissible at trial. The key word is “voluntary.” Police officers are not allowed to use physical force or psychological coercion to get a suspect to talk to them. In addition, any evidence that the police obtain as the result of a coerced statement is equally inadmissible.

To learn more about Miranda, and to get answers to your questions about every part of a criminal case, read The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by Paul Bergman and Sara J. Berman-Barrett (Nolo).

© 2010 Nolo

Learn when the government can invade your privacy to hunt for evidence of a crime.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution places limits on the power of the police to make arrests, search people and their property, and seize objects and contraband (such as illegal drugs or weapons). These limits are the bedrock of search and seizure law. This article covers the basic issues that you should know, beginning with an overview of the Fourth Amendment itself.

The Fourth Amendment: Protecting Your Privacy
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable” searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities.

The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel, or whatever, if:

the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant, or
the particular circumstances justify the search without a warrant first being issued.

When the Fourth Amendment Doesn’t Protect You
The Fourth Amendment applies to a search only if a person has a “legitimate expectation of privacy” in the place or thing searched. If not, the Fourth Amendment offers no protection because there are, by definition, no privacy issues.

Courts use a two-part test (fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court) to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched:

Did the person actually expect some degree of privacy?
Is the person’s expectation objectively reasonable — that is, one that society is willing to recognize?
For example, a person who uses a public restroom expects not to be spied upon (the person has an expectation of privacy) and most people — including judges and juries — would consider that expectation to be reasonable (there is an objective expectation of privacy as well). Therefore, the installation of a hidden video camera by the police in a public restroom will be considered a “search” and would be subject to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonableness.

On the other hand, when the police look for and find a weapon on the front seat of a car, it is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment because it is very unlikely that the person would think that the front seat of the car is a private place (an expectation of privacy is unlikely), and even if the person did, society is not willing to extend the protections of privacy to that particular location (no objective expectation of privacy).

A good example of how this works comes from a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court held that a bus passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in an opaque carry-on bag positioned in a luggage rack above the passenger’s head, and that the physical probing by the police of the bag’s exterior for evidence of contraband constituted a search subject to Fourth Amendment limitations. (Bond v. U.S., No. 98-9349 (April 17, 2000).)

Restrictions on Private Security Personnel
Private security personnel currently outnumber police officers in the United States by three to one. As a result, whether you’re shopping in a supermarket or a pharmacy, working in an office building, or visiting a friend in a housing project, you may be more likely to be confronted by a security guard than by a police officer. At the present time, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches carried out by non-governmental employees like private security guards.

For example, assume that a shopping mall security guard acting on a pure hunch searches a teenager’s backpack. Inside the backpack the guard finds a baggie containing an illegal drug. The guard can detain the teenager, call the police, and turn the drug over to a police officer. The drug is admissible in evidence, because the search was conducted by a private security guard. As private security guards increasingly exercise traditional police functions, courts may one day apply Fourth Amendment guidelines to their conduct.

What Happens When A Search Violates the Fourth Amendment
The exclusionary rule. If, upon review, a court finds that an unreasonable search occurred, any evidence seized as a result of the search cannot be used as direct evidence against the defendant in a criminal prosecution, state or federal. This rule, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1961, has come to be known as the “exclusionary rule.”

To this day, many commentators criticize the exclusionary rule on the ground that it unfairly “lets the criminal go free because the constable has erred.” But the rule’s supporters argue that excluding illegally seized evidence is necessary to deter police from conducting illegal searches. According to this deterrence argument, the police won’t conduct improper searches if the resulting evidence can’t be used to convict the defendant.

Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. In addition to being excluded as evidence against the defendant, evidence resulting from an illegal search may not be used to discover other evidence, under a legal rule colorfully known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. The “tree” is the evidence that the police illegally seize in the first place; the “fruit” is the second-generation product of the illegally seized evidence. Both tree and fruit are inadmissible at trial.

Example
Officer Wiley arrests Hy Lowe for selling phony telephone cards. A judge rules that Officer Wiley illegally entered Lowe’s home and improperly seized a map showing the location where Lowe hid the phone cards. Officer Wiley then found the phone cards in that location. Because Officer Wiley obtained the map through an illegal search, the phone cards are the fruit of that unlawful search and are therefore inadmissible into evidence.

Some defendants believe that if they can show that a search was illegal, the case must be dismissed. Not true. If a prosecutor has enough other evidence to prove the defendant guilty, the case can continue. Also, the illegally-seized evidence can be:

considered by a judge when deciding on an appropriate sentence following conviction
admitted in civil cases and deportation cases, and
in some circumstances, be used by a prosecutor to impeach (attack the credibility of) a witness who testifies in the trial.
To learn more about search and seizure law, get The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by Paul Bergman

© 2010 Nolo

Also, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.  If the prosecutor does not ask a critical question and something is left usanswered, a juror can fill in the information.  The burden is no longer on the state.  Matters of strategy such as which witness to ask a question to, or knowing that one witness does not know the answer to a question while another one does, can affect the way a trial proceeds and a lawyers credibility if the lawyer tries to bring out something through cross examination of one of the state’s witnesses only to have a juror ask an earlier witness a question which defeats the whole line of questioning, or at least puts the prosectution on notice as to what needs to be asked.

Note taking will also be allowed as of January 1, 2008 by jurors.  As with questioning, this will be discretionary in criminal trials.  Note taking in criminal trials is concerning since it may take the juror’s attention away from watching a witness on the stand as he testifies.  Thus, the juror could miss crucial facial expressions and motions which would help them in determining if a witness is telling the truth.  In a criminal trial where the accusing witness is the main witness this could be critical.

Of course, there may be benefits to note taking also.  If several jurors take notes and take them down differently, they may not be able to agree on what was said or what happened and it may open the door to arguing that the facts are not proven, that there is a reasonable doubt.

We will soon see what the new law will bring.  Last year the legislature took away the right of the defendant to have last closing argument.  The State always goes last now.   The battle for rights and justice continues

1