SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

where the jury had experimented with the heel of a shoe
in evidence by inserting a nail into it. Bruns v. Jordan
Marsh Co., 305 Mass. 437 (1940).
The line between a permissible examination of
evidence on the one hand and an impermissible experiment
on the other is often murky. Jurors are free to
manipulate evidence, even taking an exhibit apart and
putting it back together, to take a ”closer look” at it.
&e, e.q., People v. Boqle, 41 Cal. App. 4’.h 770, I71
(1995) (jurors used keys in evidence to unlock safe in
evidence). Jurors may also use objects, even those not in
evidence, to demonstrate a common sense principle ox to
illustrate an argument. See, e.q., Gentrv v. State, 236
Ga. App. 820, 823 (1999) (juror used a toy car and a
coffee cup to replicate collision at issue).
When jurors go beyond these acceptable means of
evaluating evidence and conduct experiments using foreign
materials, their acts become improper.17 In so doing,
17 u, m, Miller v. Harvey, 566 F.2d 879, 881 L4‘”cir.
1977) (juror bit another juror on the arm so jury could observe
resulting bruisea and compare them to alleged human teeth marks
identified in a photograph by a trial witness) ; United States v.
u, 371 F. Supp. 361, 369 (D.S.C. 1971), Effd. 496 P.2d 861
(4rh Cir. 1973) (use of adhesive tape by juror to test whether
residue would be left on skin once it was applied and removed as
argued by defendant); Carter v. state, 753 S.W.?d 432 (Tex. App.
1988) (jury conducted experiment to determine whether defendant’s
account of how liquid splashed when he fell was credible); Ex Parte
Thomas, 666 So.2d 855 (Ala. 1995) (jurors used rope not in evidence
to tie a juror‘s hands and conduct an experiment to resolve a
disputed issue); United States v. Nevell, 28 F.3d 109(gLh Cir. 1994)
(jury conducted an experiment with M k M‘s to test prosecution‘s
theory of the case).
37