*1 influence course on to win verdicts repondenee how hurt, and is the street technicians. if he crosses Then, describe he able to he will be good case, unblem- impeccable grammar, faultless English split clauses and ished contributing by confusing And to him. happened then, what finitives, just remove will is returned his favor, the verdict per- smile at this demonstration her blindfold imperfect fection an world. Appellant, v. Strader.
Fisher, Mus- 1960. Before C. J., Argued March-21, Jones, Bok JJ. manno, Jones, Cohen, *2 for Joseph J. with him & Malizia, Rydeshy Malisia, appellants.
John D. for appellees. Q-resimer, by Mb. 1960: April 18, action, While the a civil in the trial of charging jury He the of notes. judge jurors observed one the admon- interrupted trial his instructions general permitted. ished the not such was practice was The When charge desisted. the immediately retired to the completed, jury ap- consider and decide the another case, trial proached judge bench and notified the over handed had taken notes and he, immediately too, memoranda of handwritten pages three of had the course jotted which he down during both prepared entire The proceedings. notes, The room. were into involved, not its returned against whom party-plaintiffs, tak- ground trial on verdict, sought new dur- detail, ing of the trial proceedings, most ing for motion court denied the to a fair trial. The right ver- entered on judgment trial and from taken. dict this appeal was This court not abuse its discretion.
The lower
did
memoranda
of
said: “The writing
has previously
Court
Pennsyl-
in the Courts
encouraged
is not
v. Weaber,
Thornton
is forbidden”:
and generally
vania
been
It has
112
344
Pa. 590,
lawsuits
trial of
courts that
of many
conviction
jurors’ faculty
is to rely
practice
better
unless
depository
of the evidence,
as the sole
agree
course:
a different
themselves
Cir.
Burrill
;
v. The
has been ruled that ir- juror during part regularity or misconduct on the of a the trial of a cause is not such as to warrant a appears complained" ac- unless it that the act trial, rights involved: tually 249 Pa. A. 822 Commonwealth v. Filer, Pa. A. 479 Commonwealth v. Kosh, Ralph Friedman v. Brothers, Inc., Iowa, Minnesota, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New jurisdictions proceed York, North Dakota Utah. These seem to n theory limited, that, if attorneys, permitted judges professionally trained, who are are throughout have privilege. the same prejudice A. 900 We see no resulting herein. The notes were not taken into the not relied twelve therefore, were, by prejudicial practice consultation and it is this is the main aims sin which the rule no-note-taking oí to obviate. It is this happens the danger importance overemphasizing by the notes made other members of the materializes, causing to if not underestimate, totally power disregard, and value of their It own recollection of the evidence. also places position in a note-taking supe- in his own- and in jurors, those of the other riority eyes and sets situation up attempt wherein a juror may to exert an undue and unfair influence. None these practices objectionable occurred in this case for obvious reason that the notes made by volved were surrendered into the of the trial custody deliberations began. affirmed.
Judgment Concurring Mr. Boic: I concur because the Majority held that *4 I am to see that happy during trial has now been sanctioned at or Majority, least left to the discretion of the trial pending judge, of prejudice. show This is an advance on Thornton Weaber, (1955), whose reasons for frowning practice are good examples of the twelve-year-old we one ascribe mentality juror. breath average In ex- another breath we of him pect prodigious feats of absorption, complex
for in a first
murder case and in
degree
civil cases
douse
a kettleful of law
we
Mm with
would make a
student blanch. The
third-year law
impor-
who makes
might
remember nothing
fearful
tance without
and as for what we are so
them,
content
we
occur
should be
may
jury room,
around the
let
we draw
curtain
which
secrecy
include
as part
process;
judge’s
However,
discretion.1
matter out of the trial
today
weight
authority
States
in the United
entirely
leaves the matter
discretion
within
judge:
457,
Mass.
v.
Commonwealth Tucker,
(1905);
Company
&
v. Bleise,
Notes
the made were not them to the room and hence no there was But I prejudicial error. must a word in say order preserve position in the event a later face case may because such reversal notes were taken out and not surrendered as here. court,
general verdict reflection indicate that the use moment’s should ef- or them deliberation not have may may any fect. be view event, are, as regarded ordinary beings they helpful to do what should be allowed is most they best them the effort do the they can, morons. geniuses treated neither nor should be as they Company Appeal. Peoples Natural Gas