The Cases for and against Blindfolding the Jury

One of the most commonly employed techniques for controlling juror decision making is blindfolding; that is, when certain types of information are thought to be unduly biasing, jurors are sometimes denied access to such evidence in court. Blindfolding is typically justified on several grounds, including reducing or avoiding the bias that might be introduced by the undisclosed information; the possibility that some facts are so complicated that they might confuse rather than inform the jury; and the common exclusion of “irrelevant” evidence that by definition lacks probative value and will at best waste the jury’s time and at worse improperly bias its decision. However, the case for blindfolding is not always convincing. In some circumstances, blindfolding may be ineffective or have unanticipated negative effects. Understanding the limits of blindfolding juries is important to avoid what could be an arbitrary element in legal decision making.