[inferiorhuman]

I can't speak to Washington, but in California it's well beyond jurors being unable to grasp "beyond a reasonable doubt" because jurors, not judges, determine the sentence (life v death). The sentencing guidelines use verbiage that a lot of lay folk are not familiar with (e.g. mitigating) and jurors are not allowed to use a dictionary to define words they don't understand. Judges are not obligated to allow jurors to ask questions or for clarification during any phase of the trial. It's been a while since I've thought about capital cases but I believe written copies of the sentencing guidelines aren't provided to jurors. Given that we're talking about the ultimate punishment here, the system is (in California at least) a colossal mess.

[sitkack]

> jurors are not allowed to use a dictionary to define words they don't understand

Is this the "no outside information rule" ?

I just asked the oracle and it explained a bunch of stuff that I won't reference because I can't fact check it right now, but it sounds like the amount of "discretion" a judge has over what the jurors can do and ask is utterly illogical.

Not a lawyer, but I just looked up juror selection and found this hot pocket.

https://californiaglobe.com/articles/new-california-laws-on-...

US law is such a mess. "Standing" is IMO the biggest one for blocking the removal of bad laws.

[inferiorhuman]

I should probably clarify (and I'm not a lawyer either). In California jurors in are not guaranteed the right to ask questions regardless of the charges. This actually caught one of the defense attorneys by surprise at the trial I was a juror on (well after I'd studied this shit at uni). In capital cases, jurors determine the sentence – this is unique to capital cases. Different states do things differently.

  Is this the "no outside information rule" ?

My understanding was that this was due to the law wanting laypeople (nee jurors) to use precise legal terminology. Whereas no outside information feels more like "don't do outside research on the facts of the case".

[sitkack]

It sounds like, and it should be confirmed but ...

The court decides what information the jurors have, and it wants them to use precise legal terminology, yet there is no guarantee that those terms will be defined and they are not allowed to use dictionaries to define terms, nor is there a guarantee that a jurors questions will be answered.

Sounds like the default should be a mistrial. Sounds like a situation ripe for making things that are "only true in a court of law" and no where else.

[inferiorhuman]

Yeah that's more or less my take. Essentially the court wants a jury of laypeople who are able to understand legal terms that professionals spent years in school studying. They also want jurors to render opinions on things completely without contextual knowledge – the case I was on involved alcohol so having strong opinions on alcohol was a nearly instant dismissal, I've never seen so many teetotalers in my life.

There are people working to change this, and I think the ability to ask questions is a relatively new development, but it's slow going as anything with our legal system generally is.