Questions from the jury to the judge in a trial should be “clues” for the lawyers about what really goes on in jury deliberations. Yesterday we learned about two jury questions in the Brandon Craig trial. The first had to do with access to a letter between two of the eye witnesses. The second had to do with the timeline on the night of the crime, specifically, when an officer speeding toward the scene passed a pickup truck speeding in the opposite direction.

The first question was clearly a question about evidence of possible collusion between the eye witnesses. The second question was probably a question about corroborating or contradictory evidence of what the eye witnesses said about the vehicle they used that night.

I found Judge Martinez’s written response to the jury extremely well phrased. He not only used the standard language of such responses, which involves instructing the jury to “rely upon [their] recollection of the testimony,” but he also explained to the jury that the materials they had requested were not admitted into evidence, and that is why he could not send them into the jury deliberation room.

In my jury stint, we sent several questions to the judge who replied very tersely and in one instance insultingly. Since that time, when I have read or heard of judges’ responses to jury questions like that, I always wonder why judges and lawyers don’t realize how such legalese responses not only frustrate a jury but often even anger them. Judge Martinez wisely did not do this—he must understand what a difficult task the Brandon Craig jury has.

I have spent my life studying language. I know most people think a degree in English is a degree in nothing, but I know otherwise. Language is essential to communication. Written language is essential to civilization and law. Where there is no written language, there is lawlessness. Did you know that there is no native written language in Somalia? (Recently Somalia has become Moslem and so has adopted Arabic.) If Somalia isn’t an example of lawlessness, I don’t know what is.

Written questions from juries are extremely important. They ought not to be answered with legalese—or worse. In my case, the jury asked about the legal definition of “to confine.” The judge arrogantly replied with a quote from Merriam Webster. (I subsequently learned that juries aren’t supposed to have access to any reference material, including a dictionary.) I felt as if she had slapped me in the face: she knew I have a Ph.D. in English (and I wasn’t the only juror with graduate degrees).

The question should have told the judge and lawyers that we, the jury, were struggling with why it was that sexual assault (where every rapist holds his victim while assaulting her) is different from the confinement that occurs in kidnapping and why, therefore, kidnapping was charged separately from sexual assault.

In the end, we could not find the defendant guilty of kidnapping.

If I were Judge Martinez, I would do as he seems to be doing—try to give the jury as much information as he legally can. The judge’s role is to aid the jury in reaching a verdict, not only to protect the defendant’s rights. In this case, the more information the jury has, the better they will be able to evaluate the prosecution’s case.

(Maybe I should start an Honor Blogroll of judges who seem to respect the jury system. I would put Judge Martinez on it.)