logo
Jurors in the James Craig trial can ask witnesses questions about their testimony. Here's how it works and what they've asked

Jurors in the James Craig trial can ask witnesses questions about their testimony. Here's how it works and what they've asked

CNN22-07-2025
At the murder trial for James Craig, the Colorado man accused of poisoning and killing his wife, lawyers aren't the only ones asking witnesses questions.
Jurors, too, are able to ask witnesses questions about their testimony, thanks to a unique law in Arapahoe County, Colorado.
Opening statements in the case were presented in the case on July 15 and the trial is tentatively scheduled to last around three weeks. Craig, a 47-year-old dentist, pleaded not guilty to charges of first-degree murder, solicitation to commit murder, solicitation to commit evidence tampering, and solicitation to commit perjury.
Prosecutors say he poisoned his wife, Angela Craig, with a mix of arsenic, cyanide and tetrahydrozoline, a medication commonly found in eyedrops. They also accuse him of plotting in jail to kill four other people, including the lead detective investigating his wife's death.
Colorado's Arapahoe County is one of several jurisdictions across the country where jurors are explicitly allowed to ask questions during a criminal trial. Since Craig's trial began, jurors have asked witnesses at least a dozen questions, written on pieces of paper and then slipped to the judge to read out loud.
Here's more about juror questioning – and what jurors are asking witnesses in Craig's trial.
Jurors being able to ask questions 'isn't a brand-new idea,' according to Nadia Banteka, a professor at Florida State University College of Law.
'Historically, jurors played a more active role in fact-finding during early Anglo-American trials,' she told CNN in an email. 'But as the adversarial system evolved in the 19th and 20th centuries, jury questioning largely disappeared.'
Judicial reform efforts 'aimed at improving juror comprehension and trial accuracy' helped revive juror questioning in the 1980s and 1990s, according to Banteka.
Today, the practice of allowing jurors ask questions is 'growing, but it's far from universal,' she added.
Juror questioning isn't a free-for-all, according to Banteka. Instead, it's a 'highly structured and judge-controlled' process.
Typically, jurors are instructed to write down their questions after a witness testifies. Then 'the judge reviews those questions privately, usually with input from the attorneys, to determine whether they comply with the rules of evidence,' she said.
If a question is deemed appropriate, the judge reads it aloud anonymously to the witness.
And jurors can't just ask anything they want. Their questions must be 'relevant, non-prejudicial, and not call for inadmissible evidence,' Banteka told CNN.
'They also should not suggest bias, challenge the witness's credibility directly, or resemble arguments,' she explained.
'Jurors often are told not to discuss their questions with each other and not to speculate if a question isn't asked,' Banteka said. 'The jurors' role is not to take over the investigation, but to clarify what they feel confused about.'
The jurors, a majority of whom are women, have generally stayed engaged and observant throughout the first days of Craig's trial. They appeared particularly focused on the testimonies of Caitlin Romero, the former office manager for Craig's dental practice, who says she saw a foil packet of potassium cyanide delivered to his office; Michelle Redfearn, the wife of Craig's long-time dental practice partner and Angela's friend; as well as Craig's daughters.
Rose Spychala, one of the nurses who treated Angela Craig at the hospital on March 15 – when she was hospitalized for the third and final time – demonstrated the equipment used while treating her and testified that James Craig took photos of his wife from the hallway. A juror asked whether she had ever seen other families take photos of a patient while receiving emergency medical care. Spychala said no – she hadn't seen it before.
After Romero's testimony, jurors asked her several questions, including about Craig's computer, how packages to the office were usually addressed and whether she had her original text chains with Craig.
David Lee, who worked on processing the digital evidence from cell phones belonging to Craig and his wife and a computer and DVR, was asked whether it's possible to tell if data had been altered. He said that it is generally possible, although it depends on many variables.
Cassie Rodriquez, a customer service representative for Midland Scientific, where the cyanide order was placed, and Angel Amerine, Craig's onetime dental assistant, were also asked to clarify details about their testimony.
A majority of states permit jurors to ask questions in some form, especially in civil cases, according to Banteka.
The specifics vary by jurisdiction. In some states, jurors are allowed to ask questions only in civil trials – and some, only if the judge and parties agree.
Colorado is one of three states that explicitly requires judges to allow jurors to ask questions in both civil and criminal trials, according to The Associated Press. At least six states forbid the practice outright.
The conflict comes down to different understandings of the role of the jury, according to Banteka.
Jurors who can ask questions tend to be 'more engaged and attentive,' according to Banteka. Asking questions can also help clarify confusing testimony and reduce misunderstandings.
'Judges in states where juror questioning is routine report that trials run smoothly and that jurors ask thoughtful, appropriate questions,' she said. Studies have shown jurors often leave the trial feeling more satisfied with their role and more confident in their verdict, she added.
And a juror's questions can offer attorneys a 'rare window' into how the jury is thinking.
But in other jurisdictions, there's concern that asking questions can undermine the neutrality of the jury. 'A juror who asks a question may start to form theories about the case too early, which can bias their interpretation of later evidence,' Banteka said.
'Critics also argue it blurs the line between advocate and fact-finder, shifting the trial away from the traditional adversarial model,' she said.
Another worry is that a juror's questions 'may inadvertently assist the prosecution in meeting its burden of proof.' If the prosecution fails to present needed testimony, a juror's question might fill in the gap.
'Courts have sometimes cited this risk in barring the practice of juror questions, warning that jurors could become 'mini-prosecutors' despite their best intentions,' Banteka explained.
Asking questions can also alter the group dynamic amongst jurors. 'A juror who poses multiple questions may come to dominate deliberations, or others may defer to their perceived authority,' Banteka said.
'Ultimately, it's a balancing act between promoting juror understanding and preserving the formal structure of the trial,' she added.
Craig's trial is taking place in the same courtroom where James Holmes was tried for opening fire in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater, killing 12 people and injuring 70 others. In that trial, jurors were also able to ask questions. Like in the Craig trial, they wrote their questions on paper and passed them to the judge. Jurors asked witnesses more than 100 questions, according to The Associated Press.
CNN's Andi Babineau and Eric Levenson contributed to this report.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Editorial: Guns are the problem: Four are dead in New York because a gullible public laps up the same toxic myth about guns
Editorial: Guns are the problem: Four are dead in New York because a gullible public laps up the same toxic myth about guns

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Editorial: Guns are the problem: Four are dead in New York because a gullible public laps up the same toxic myth about guns

This time, the gun death came to New York. The same ridiculous fiction is being sold to a gullible public that was trotted out after Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Parkland, Buffalo and all the others: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. What's more pathetic than those who keep selling that myth is the ease with which so many Americans buy it. Four New Yorkers, Didarul Islam, Wesley LePatner, Aland Etienne and Julia Hyman, went to work in Midtown on a broiling hot Monday and were murdered. Mental illness didn't kill these four. CTE didn't kill these four. A supposed aggrievement in a suicide note didn't kill these four. A semiautomatic assault rifle, identified as either an AR-15 or an M4, killed these four and wounded a fifth, Craig Clementi. The motive of the dead assailant was not what destroyed four lives and ripped apart surviving families and friends. It was a high-powered rifle rapidly firing bullets. Absent the gun, and the victims would all be alive today. But there was a gun, a big gun, with lots of bullets and we are left with grief and the funerals for the four New Yorkers who were taken from us. But it wasn't only the gun, or the gunmakers, or the politicians who peddle the fatal myth. It's the people across our fraying nation who believe that there is somehow something patriotic about having the power to fire off 45 rounds a minute. The Second Amendment says nothing about unstable or sick people having weapons of war. How is that a constitutional right? New York has strong gun control laws, but we don't search people at the border bringing in guns from other states with more lax regulations. Only federal law can bring this insanity to an end, but politicians will decry the killing and do nothing. And tomorrow more people will die. And the day after that. Again. Again. Again. This time the gun death came to New York. Islam was a cop, a 36-year-old Bangladeshi immigrant, pulling in some extra money for his wife and two boys and another baby on the way in a few weeks on what is called paid detail where a private business pays for off-duty uniformed NYPD officers to provide additional security. His wife is now a widow, his two sons fatherless and his new baby is coming into a world without a dad, because of a gun. The gun then killed LePatner, an executive at the big financial firm Blackstone, who was in the lobby at 6:30 likely heading home to her own husband, teen daughter and seventh grader son. Besides being a business whiz, LePatner was a philanthropist helping her kids' school and other charitable causes. She was on the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Museum of Art for not even six months. Now her life is over at age 43, because of a gun. Also murdered in the lobby was Etienne, one of the building's private security officers, a member of 32BJ, the union that staffs New York's commercial buildings. He was just 46 and had two school-aged children. Etienne went to work on Monday and never came home, because of a gun. Clementi was struck with a bullet, but would survive and help cops identify the man wielding the gun. The killer then took an elevator to the 33rd floor and killed one more victim, Hyman, who only graduated college five years ago. Her whole life was ahead of her. No more. Because of a gun. Monday morning, as the city got back to work, Didarul Islam, Wesley LePatner, Aland Etienne and Julia Hyman all converged at 345 Park Ave, at 52nd St., between St. Bart's and the Seagram Building. They all had a purpose for being there. But as the day ended, the gun arrived. It also had a purpose. Its purpose was to kill people quickly. And only the gun fulfilled its purpose on Monday evening. ___

Local leaders to face Texas lawmakers today as questions linger about deadly July 4 flooding
Local leaders to face Texas lawmakers today as questions linger about deadly July 4 flooding

CNN

time31 minutes ago

  • CNN

Local leaders to face Texas lawmakers today as questions linger about deadly July 4 flooding

Local leaders in Central Texas will face more tough questions Thursday as state lawmakers – and survivors – press again for information about the responses to July 4 flash flooding that killed at least 136 people. The hearing, at 9:30 a.m. local time, in hard-hit Kerrville follows a 12-hour special hearing last week that saw legislators scrutinize the state's safety preparations – and split over focusing on whether more should have been done before the storm or how efficiently life-saving efforts unfolded. Among those set to testify Thursday is an emergency response official who a colleague has said likely was asleep in the critical hours before the flood, when four months' worth of rain fell and forced the Guadalupe River to rise over 20 feet, sweeping homes, cars, campers and cabins downstream. Three people are still missing as the summer's tragic surge of deadly flash floods across the United States underscores the escalating volatility of the warming planet. Texas' Select Committees on Disaster Preparedness and Flooding are scheduled to hear Thursday from Kerrville Mayor Joe Herring Jr. and City Manager Dalton Rice; and Kerr County Judge Rob Kelly, Sheriff Larry Leitha and Emergency Management Coordinator W.B. 'Dub' Thomas. Thomas was likely asleep in the critical morning hours of the deadly flood, Leitha has told CNN. 'I'm sure he was at home asleep at that time,' said the sheriff, who acknowledged he also then was sleeping. Thomas, also a deputy sheriff, has not responded to CNN's repeated requests for comment and declined other such opportunities since the storm. Lawmakers are also set to hear Thursday from leaders of other affected counties and cities, as well as meteorologists, flooding experts and leaders of two mental health resource centers, followed by public testimony, according to the meeting agenda. Last week's hearing included testimony from officials in charge of managing the rivers of the region's 'Flash Flood Alley,' as well as the head of the state's Division of Emergency Management and members of the state's police force, the Department of Public Safety. CNN's Matthew J. Friedman and Rachel Clarke contributed to this reporting.

Gabbard Posts Deranged Infographic to ‘Prove' Obama Claims
Gabbard Posts Deranged Infographic to ‘Prove' Obama Claims

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Gabbard Posts Deranged Infographic to ‘Prove' Obama Claims

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard took to social media on Wednesday with a series of bizarre infographics as she doubles down on explosive claims about the 2016 election. President Donald Trump and his team have turned to unsubstantiated conspiracies about Barack Obama when pressed with ongoing questions about convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. On Wednesday, Gabbard announced that she had declassified the House Intelligence Committee staff report on the Intelligence Community Assessment of the 2016 election at Trump's direction. She then proceeded to post a new series of highly-produced graphics highlighting what the Trump administration claimed were Obama-era lies about the election. It's the latest in a series of information dumps Gabbard has made while arguing Obama officials manufactured claims that Russia worked to influence the election. However, as Gabbard continues to release documents, she has strategically conflated two separate Russian activities in her messaging. The documents determine Russia did not attack election infrastructure or hack the election, but the intelligence community did find that Russia tried to influence the ballot. While Gabbard claimed the report she released on Wednesday 'exposes how the Obama Administration manufactured the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that they knew was false' and accused officials of 'promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election,' the report itself directly states Russia worked to undermine the election. What was less conclusive in that specific report was Russia's preferred candidate. 'The key judgments found to be credible include: 1) President Putin ordered conventional and cyber influence operations, notably by leaking politically sensitive emails obtained from computer intrusions; 2) Putin's principal motivations in these operations were to undermine faith in the US democratic process and to weaken what the Russians considered to be an inevitable Clinton presidency,' the declassified report reads. The report was based on an investigation conducted by former Republican House Intel Chair Devin Nunes, who now serves as the CEO of Trump Media. While the House report agreed that Russia did interfere, the GOP report disputed the 2017 intelligence assessment that Putin had a 'clear preference' for Trump and 'aspired to help his chances' in 2016. It accuses the former CIA Director John Brennan of ordering the release of reports containing previously collected but unpublished intelligence, including info of questionable origins, which became the foundation for the intelligence assessment that Putin preferred Trump. As Gabbard claimed publicly in a Fox News interview that an intelligence report said Russia did not attempt to affect the outcome of the election, she conveniently left out details of the document she has cited. The document she points to as evidence Obama officials promoted lies, a Presidential Daily Briefing, specifically addressed one type of influence and stated Russia did not impact the election results 'by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.' Gabbard, who has long been accused by critics of being a Putin apologist for repeating Russian propaganda to the point where she has been praised on Russian state TV before being tapped as Trump's intel chief, has argued the document she has released details 'a treasonous conspiracy' by members of the Obama White House. Secretary of State Marco Rubio previously refuted Gabbard's allegations. Rubio, as then-acting chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, led the investigation, which resulted in a bipartisan Russia report that found not only did Russia engage in an effort to influence the 2016 election, but that Putin ordered the hack and leak of information damaging to Hillary Clinton and helped the Trump campaign. While the Gabbard information drop and accusations are loaded with holes, MAGA Republicans are seizing on her assessment and are accusing Obama of treason. Her accusations have also been promoted by members of the Trump White House. On Tuesday, Trump pointed directly to her allegations and attacks on Obama officials in response to questions about Epstein in the Oval Office. Obama's office made a rare move on Tuesday and responded to the accusations coming directly from the White House. 'Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,' Obama spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush said in a statement. 'But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store