Lincolnite

Hmmm. If it was me, and I were allowed to take notes, I’d probably be doodling.

So I guess I can understand it. 😊

That said, People can’t remember everything presented in a long trial, can they?

My knee-jerk reaction was the same as yours, Mr. Wilson, but after reading the story I think I like it how it is.

What are some of your specific concerns with the proposal?

I think it’s reasonable that note-taking could be a distraction when the case may demand the jury’s full attention, particularly as the one source mentioned observing body language.

There was also the point about good note takers getting power over the rest of the jury.

Those concerns just make sense to me, I guess.

They make sense to me, too. I just don’t think they’re nearly so concerning that they should stop this bill. For example:

Concern: Note-taking takes away from observing body language. Probably a little, yes. But so can staring at the ceiling, or daydreaming about ... well, anything. If note-taking is so bad, why is it so often encouraged—if not required—in schools and boardrooms? If memory is so great, why do attorneys jot down notes during trials?

Concern: Jurors should have their undivided attention on what’s going on. Well, yes. Of course they should. But (a) that doesn’t happen, and (b) it doesn’t matter that they’re paying attention now if they can’t accurately recall the information later.

Concern: Most jurors don’t know how to take good notes. Quite true, but most people also don’t know how to listen well, nor do they have a good understanding of how to process legal arguments. Mediocre notes are surely better than no notes.

Concern: Jurors who take notes will have power over jurors who don’t take notes. This may or may not be true. Regardless, doesn’t it make sense for the jurors with the most detailed information to have more power than those with only their memories to fall back on? Currently power tends to be granted to the most dominant personalities. Personally, I’d rather have the most informed, rather than the most outgoing, lead the pack.

The one concern that does hold water, in my opinion, is that jurors will doodle and be distracted. However I’m not convinced they would be any more distracted than they are by good old fashioned daydreaming. A bailiff could help halt scribblers just with his presence.

I think pretty much every study on learning has shown that people retain more information more accurately when they participate in the learning process. Note-taking is the simplest way jurors can participate in a trial without interfering with it.

For myself, doodling doesn’t actually take away from my ability to listen and comprehend. Usually it’s just giving my hands something to do. Plus, with pen in hand I can quickly jot down important points.

Concern: Note-taking takes away from observing body language. Probably a little, yes. But so can staring at the ceiling, or daydreaming ...

Yeah, no kidding, but it’s not like the judge would order jury to look at the ceiling or think about their favorite childhood memory. You’re comparing a jury member’s choice to stop paying attention to something they would be encouraged to do that could have adverse effects.

<i>If note-taking is so bad, why is it so often encouraged

Does anyone know if jurors have access to the court record during deliberations? Isn’t that why (in part) they have a stenographer?