Are juries able to ask questions during a trial?

Question

One thing I keep seeing on TV crime dramas like Law and Order is that the defense and prosecution ask questions of those at the bench for the sake of the jury, at times trying to trigger emotional responses to sway a jury's opinion (i.e. trying to get an accused to lose their temper). However, I have never really seen a juror ask someone at the bench a question.

In a recent Australian case in which the convicted murder's appeal was granted for a lighter sentence the judge commented that

the jury could not properly have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the element of intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm had been proved.

Given this case was about a man who killed his wife (and I have also forgotten some of the facts about the case), when I heard about this I thought "did the jury not think that when you pick up any weapon you have to be fully aware you can take a person's life or do grievous bodily harm with it?"

But then I remembered that in the crime dramas I have seen (probably not a good idea to assume this is how trials work in the real world), the defense and prosecution may not have revealed to the jury when the murder weapon was picked up and the state of mind of the accused moments before said weapon was picked up, tiny facts which on the surface may not mean a lot.

So I am wondering: are juries able to ask questions of those on the bench during a trial? If not, why aren't they, considering that it's the jury who ends up deciding if the accused is innocent or guilty?

Answer 1

First, while Law and Order should not be taken as an accurate depiction of a New York trial, it especially should not be taken as an accurate depiction of an Australian trial. Australian law, while it has some major similarities with US law (both ultimately derive from the law of England), is not US law. With procedural matters (such as "may jurors ask questions of witnesses"), it can potentially differ from court to court.

In general, jurors may not simply ask a witness a question. The jury's job is not to investigate and figure out if the defendant was guilty or not; it's to evaluate the cases presented by each side. US (and Australian, as far as I know) courts use what's known as the adversarial model, where the prosecution and the defense both present the best cases they can and a neutral third party decides which case was stronger. In a US criminal trial, the state is expected to justify why someone should be in jail; the jury shouldn't be helping them justify it. This isn't how all jurisdictions around the world work, but it's how the US does.

One concern with juror questions is that it has the risk that the juror will not be impartial. Jurors are not supposed to get into arguments with witnesses, or to go after them to try to prove a point. In your case, the juror might be introducing an entirely different line of reasoning from the one either side is presenting, and that's simply not their job. People have raised the concern that a juror thinking up questions might be deciding the case before they hear all the evidence, and might give too much weight to the answers to their own questions (or read a lot into it if a question is denied).

There are also rules on what questions may be legally asked; lawyers know these and jurors generally don't, which is why jurors may almost never directly ask a question to a witness. Where they can ask questions, it's virtually always written questions, which the judge reviews, gives to both sides to see if anyone objects, and then reads to the witness in a neutral tone.

Answer 2

In the UK, the jury cannot directly ask questions (to the witness, to either side's legal team) but can ask the clerk of the court to pass a note to the Judge (indeed, when I sat on a jury a couple of year ago, we were positively encouraged to do this).

What the judge can do in response may be limited, depending on the question: he can explain "points of law" (e.g. to find someone guilty of Grievous Bodily Harm, the prosecution must prove intent, IIRC). In my case I wanted to know if we could see a piece of evidence (a doctor's report) that had been presented by the prosecution and accepted unchallenged by the defence -- we could. The judge cannot "give opinions", but may be able to directly or through one of the barristers elucidate clarification from a witness.

On your more general point (realism of court-room dramas) the most striking difference between TV and real life (from my single experience) was that the entire court process was far more geared around the jury than is (usually) depicted on TV: witnesses are directed to talk TO the jury (not to the barristers or judge); we were encouraged to indicate to the judge if at any time we were uncertain, or "uncomfortable" for any reason (e.g. because of the nature of the evidence, or simply if we needed the toilet). Prior to this, I'd gained the impression that the jury's role was much more "passive observer" (of the legal process) whereas they are the "active target" of everything that happens in the court.

Answer 3

In some jurisdictions in the US the judge allow the jury to submit questions, to the judge, for review and potentially to have posed to whomever it is relevant. (see Ceats v. Continental Airlines). It has become more and more permissible over the past decade, and in some states (I know that AZ and CO it is by right). So long as the judge does not find the question to violate an evidentiary ruling or rule (like mentioning that there is insurance to cover damages), the judge will typically allow it to be asked in those jurisdictions that give the jurors the chance to pose inquiries.

It is certainly tough for attorneys who cannot plan for this, and sometimes it is turns out to be the very question they did not want asked.

The juries are never allowed to ask the questions directly or without review by the judge prior.