Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 9/9/2019 8:57 PM, wrote:
>> On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 7:15:44 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> What's wrong with taking notes?
>>>
>> It's just not something that is tolerated in courts in my city
>> and/or state.
>> Maybe they figure you are more interested in doing a book deal
>> than giving
>> the accused a fair trial.* I can't really say I know why.
>>
>
>
> https://courts.uslegal.com/jury-syst...ing-by-jurors/
>
> As trials have become more complex, and the information given more
> difficult to remember and place in perspective, a number of states
> have made express permission for jurors to take notes during the
> trial. These states include Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut,
> Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Washington,
> Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Although only one state expressly prohibits
> this practice, in most jurisdictions whether members of a jury are
> allowed to take notes will depend upon the discretion of the judge.
> One survey indicated that 37 percent of the judges in state courts
> indicate they do not allow jurors to take notes during a trial. In
> federal courts, this matter is also left up to the judge

I bet they are allowed to review the trial's transcripts during
deliberations though. That would be a close second to notes, if not
actually more comprehensive than the average note-taker.

Perhaps note-taking may be forbidden lest it contain testimony that
has been disallowed and stricken from the record?

At any rate, they should allow notes, if only to ease poor Druce's
eggbag.