Sure does. The Judge will remove everyone from the room except the bailiff and the record-keeper and poll the jury; directly asking each person what their verdict is and if their verdict is being influenced by anything outside of the evidence.
If they were to say that they are afraid of riots, the judge could dismiss them and recall alternates to replace them. Once they say they're afraid of riots, they're no longer being an impartial juror and it would be unconstitutional for the judge to allow them to remain on the jury as it would violate Kyle's right to a fair trial.
As far as I know, this is a very rare occurrence. But this case has been pretty wacky altogether anyway.
The Judge can ask each juror what their verdict is at this particular time? That is fucked. I could understand asking about external influence impacting their ability to reach a decision; but asking their position seems terribly unconstitutional.
Generally, the Judge is an authority figure. If he were to ask any of the jurors their position, it might elicit a response that will be meant to please the Judge. Such an inquiry by the Judge would likely impact impartiality. Further, imagine that the Judge asks a juror their position, the juror sides with acquittal but is frightened of the backlash, the Judge dismisses the juror. This would absolutely interfere with Rittenhouse's right to a fair trial (dismissing a juror inclined to acquit).
Right I get that.
If the judge is worried the Jury has been influenced or coerced how does he go about it?
Does he wait for their verdict and then ask them?
Edit: as in what power does the judge have to figure it out?
Not at all. They are under oath in that circumstance. The judge's priority is to protect the rights of the accused. So he can ask them, and they must answer truthfully or perjure themselves or be in contempt of court.
Sure does. The Judge will remove everyone from the room except the bailiff and the record-keeper and poll the jury; directly asking each person what their verdict is and if their verdict is being influenced by anything outside of the evidence.
If they were to say that they are afraid of riots, the judge could dismiss them and recall alternates to replace them. Once they say they're afraid of riots, they're no longer being an impartial juror and it would be unconstitutional for the judge to allow them to remain on the jury as it would violate Kyle's right to a fair trial.
As far as I know, this is a very rare occurrence. But this case has been pretty wacky altogether anyway.
Interesting insight, thanks.
WOW. Thank you for the detailed reply.
This does not seem to be so implausible for this case.
The Judge can ask each juror what their verdict is at this particular time? That is fucked. I could understand asking about external influence impacting their ability to reach a decision; but asking their position seems terribly unconstitutional.
How is a judge asking what their position is unconstitutional?
Genuinely curious.
Generally, the Judge is an authority figure. If he were to ask any of the jurors their position, it might elicit a response that will be meant to please the Judge. Such an inquiry by the Judge would likely impact impartiality. Further, imagine that the Judge asks a juror their position, the juror sides with acquittal but is frightened of the backlash, the Judge dismisses the juror. This would absolutely interfere with Rittenhouse's right to a fair trial (dismissing a juror inclined to acquit).
But the decision is always going to go to the judge so I don't understand your point? Also if they're worried about riots that's probably a good sign.
Right I get that.
If the judge is worried the Jury has been influenced or coerced how does he go about it?
Does he wait for their verdict and then ask them?
Edit: as in what power does the judge have to figure it out?
Not at all. They are under oath in that circumstance. The judge's priority is to protect the rights of the accused. So he can ask them, and they must answer truthfully or perjure themselves or be in contempt of court.