Eliciting promise to require independent conviction by each juror

Eliciting promise to require independent conviction by each juror

In many computer crime cases, one significant substantive question is whether the juror can demand to be independently convinced of each element of the crime despite the technicality of the evidence in support of each element. Without belittling the juror, it is important to communicate the necessity that he or she be personally convinced; to not accept something not understood simply because other jurors say they understand it and that their understanding leads them to find a certain fact to be true. As with any other question during voir dire, this question attempts to elicit a pledge of commitment to a high standard of truth by the juror. This type of question relates to every juror, and might be asked first of the juror who seems most supportive of the defense. Subsequently, from time to time, it may be asked of other jurors thereby making it memorable in the juror's minds when difficult factual questions arise. Unanimity is required for conviction, therefore, the more the defense counsel can convince each juror to independently judge the evidence, the better chance the client has of acquittal.