According to CNN/TruTV’s Jean Casarez, the jury in the NJ trial of State Trooper Robert Higbee has requested a calculator. On-camera commentator Jack Ford wonders whether the jury ought to be given the calculator, since it may indicate they wish to generate their own calculations of potential distances and vehicle speeds involved in the crash. The question is whether the judge will send a calculator into the jury room.

Since the judge himself on at least one occasion did calculations in court, he may think that’s entirely proper for the jury, as well. I can only guess.

However, Ms. Casarez notes there’s an engineer on the jury.

Two thoughts from this former juror:

1) As I watched prosecution expert witness Ruth present his data and calculations, I wondered whether there would be a juror with better mathematical literacy than I possess who could evaluate the numbers for the rest of the panel. I had questions about Ruth’s data. In particular, I wondered why he calculated everything at 100 miles per hour and how the numbers would have been affected if he had based his calculations on numbers such as 50 mph, 65 mph, 70 mph, 75 mph, and 80 mph. However, even the defense expert Dr. Loftus said that 2/10ths of a second was too short to make a difference in the data. While the defense may be fearing that the jury is going to calculate the same distances the judge did outside their presence, I wonder if the prosecution ought to be the side that should be worried. This jury request may indicate they are confused by Ruth’s numbers and charts, as I was.

2) Engineers on juries—in my experience—look at things very differently from everyone else. They tend to be very detailed-oriented. They tend to believe in cut-and-dried facts. They tend to make decisions irrespective of emotions and gut instincts. This can often favor the defense, when it’s a matter of reasonable doubt about a state of mind. (BTW: An engineer doesn’t really need a calculator to calculate such simple values as are involved in the Ruth charts.)