Question to lawyers

When the judge tells the jury to disregard a recent remak from the attorney or presecutor -- or even the same lawyer will say "withdrawn" --, how on Earth is expected the jury not to take that remak into account?

Some way or another, it will affect the jury's train of thought when reaching a verdict. Right?

Right! That's why most lawyers will endure risking a sustained objection or admonition from a judge just to get the thing they want the jury to remember out there.

So, the system is really flawed right there. The whole thing is just a scene.

I'm not sure if it's a flaw if there's no better alternative. That said, juries can and do openly discuss this in a "yeah, but would we think that without X?" kind of way. Happened to me a bit. Someone floated some speculation and I said we basically had to decide if something was likely without that idea. We're all human, but I don't have any trouble believing things can be at least mostly discounted if people make the effort.

Asked my friend, an actual lawyer, and he said something similar, with a little relevant addendum at the end:

It's primarily meant to stop lawyers from building a story/defense around the withdrawn question/statement.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

That's a good point, they can't make future arguments explicitly building on that, too.

Would I be show boating if I said I almost become a lawyer? Then I saw the debt to earnings ratio of a public defender and said no.

Heh. I considered it, too, but I doubt I have the patience for all that formalization. You need infinite paperwork stamina, it seems.

MSNBC used this tactic just last year: a lead anchor person reported that President Trump is "talking about exterminating Latinos."

Now, they obviously knew this was a false headline when it was reported and knew before it was even said that they'd have to retract it - but they aired it anyway... and of course, later retracted it with an apology by the anchor person.

But, despite the completely ridiculous & intentionally (horrifically) divisive nature of the statement, and the fact that they had absolutely nothing to back it up as far as sources or anything else... they reported this false headline anyway so that their listeners would hear it. And they know if their listeners hear it (despite any quiet & downplayed retractions) they will glom onto it, it will become a meme for many of them, and many will accept it as fact and repeat it ad infintium. It really is an insidious tactic.

I believe the problem is known as "you can't unring the bell".

__________________
Rules:

When women have a poet, they want a cowboy.
When they have a cowboy, they want a poet.
They'll say "I don't care if he's a poet or cowboy, so long as he's a nice guy. But oh, I'm so attracted to that bad guy over there."

Understand this last part, and you'll get them all.

Watching Law and Order: SVU, sometimes the trial takes place before an extended jury in a different setting: the witness sits at a table facing the jury, with the prosecutor being behind a podium.

Could you explain why this process takes place instead of the "regular" trial?

I believe that's called a "grand jury." It doesn't happen instead of a trial, it happens to determine if charges can even be brought at all. Much lower threshold to clear, so there's a running joke about how a grand jury "would indict a ham sandwich." It's just there as a guard against egregious prosecutorial decisions, I think.

Glad you brought this up (shouldn't it be, "brought up this:?..).

I'll add this drama cliche to the "Current Movie Cliches" thread.