That makes a ton of sense to me. It is hard to say where the line is on this one though. Definitely clear the gallery if there is intimidation, or noisy cheerleaders. But is it common to have people in the gallery with the intent of influencing the court? Family members of the accused or of the victims of the one who is on trial being pr…
That makes a ton of sense to me. It is hard to say where the line is on this one though. Definitely clear the gallery if there is intimidation, or noisy cheerleaders. But is it common to have people in the gallery with the intent of influencing the court? Family members of the accused or of the victims of the one who is on trial being present could make the jury sympathetic to one side. Do attorneys suggest that family members come for that reason?
The judge should have discretion to remove any spectators they consider disruptive or displaying intent to intimidate. I am actually not a big fan of victims' statements. Should a victim be less important,and justice be less, because they have no family or friends? But family members should be permitted to be present if they wish, so long as they are not disruptive.
That makes a ton of sense to me. It is hard to say where the line is on this one though. Definitely clear the gallery if there is intimidation, or noisy cheerleaders. But is it common to have people in the gallery with the intent of influencing the court? Family members of the accused or of the victims of the one who is on trial being present could make the jury sympathetic to one side. Do attorneys suggest that family members come for that reason?
The judge should have discretion to remove any spectators they consider disruptive or displaying intent to intimidate. I am actually not a big fan of victims' statements. Should a victim be less important,and justice be less, because they have no family or friends? But family members should be permitted to be present if they wish, so long as they are not disruptive.