Have you ever rushed to judgement when the decision was rather important, so that you could get out of the room and get your fix?

Depriving jurors their
nicotine fix hurts justice
Friday, August 11, 2006
ANN FISHER - afisher@dispatch.com
The Columbus Dispatch - Ohio, USA

Any former hard-core smoker can still feel the filter tip pressed between his lips, the burn of toxins in her throat and that ironic sense of clarity as the nicotine reaches the bloodstream and heads north to the brain.

Twenty years later, I sometimes still dream about smoking, then awaken with a dull dread that fades quickly but not before reminding me that I remain an addict.

So it's easy to muster some sympathy for the folks forced by local indoor-smoking bans to huddle outside for a quick puff. And anyone who's suffered nicotine withdrawal can relate to the plight of the Licking County juror forbidden to smoke anywhere until after reaching a verdict.

In an appeal this week before the Ohio Supreme Court, defense attorneys for a man convicted of murder in Licking County argued that addiction-addled jurors might have rushed to judgment in the case.

Just the thought of missing a fix brings on what I like to call a "nicky fit" in some smokers. And if you've never known the torment of that state, at least join me in concern for the defendant and plaintiff. A person's future and the integrity of our justice system shouldn't rely on any group that includes one or more persons going through nicotine withdrawal.

An all-out ban on jury smoking is an awkward way to make a statement about the dangers of cigarettes. If the concern is one of security in the case of a sequestered jury, certainly a guard or bailiff could be spared to baby-sit while the addict lights one up outside.

Despite the volumes of case law on the dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke, able Dispatch researcher Amy Disch found little reference anywhere to nicotine-addicted jurors.

In 1985, a Florida judge ruled that a defendant in a drug case could have a fair trail even though a new law at the time denied jurors cigarettes in the jury room. The Houston Chronicle article didn't mention whether the jurors were allowed smoke breaks elsewhere, but did refer to the withdrawal symptoms as "nicotine fits."

In 1993, while Covington, La., officials considered a smoking ban in public buildings, including the Parish Courthouse, a juror suggested they consider how the ban would affect a jury deliberating a case, according to The Times-Picayune in New Orleans. "I would hate to have a case decided because someone's having a nicotine fit," said the juror, who also was a lawyer.

In 1999, two judges warned that a total smoking ban in the Vanderburgh County, Ind., government buildings would inspire some jurors to "reach a verdict based solely on their desire to leave the courthouse and smoke a cigarette," reported the Evansville Courier & Press.

Despite the dearth of scholarly material on how a juror's nicky fit could affect the outcomes of cases, the science is extensive on nicotine's effects.

The American Heart Association on its Web site says that nicotine causes changes in the brain that make people want to use the substance more and more, and that it's one of the hardest addictions to break. Withdrawal symptoms include irritability, impatience, hostility, anxiety, a depressed mood, difficulty concentrating and restlessness.

That would be a classic nicky fit, if I remember correctly. Those symptoms also make up a good checklist of what you don't want in a juror, and in many other situations.

It's a good bet that most folks wouldn't want a person in the throes of a nicky fit to judge a pie contest at the county fair, let alone a sensitive personalinjury case, or the fate of a human being.

©2006 The Columbus Dispatch - Ohio, USA

Source link:

http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/08/11/20060811-E1-01.html


Edited 1 time by FreedomNicotine Apr 19 09 1:02 AM.