Florida Circuit Judge Elizabeth Scherer has recently ruled that the jury in the Parkland school shooter case will be permitted to tour Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the place where 23-year-old Nikolas Cruz killed 17 students more than four years ago. Cruz's lawyers presented a defense argument that a jury tour of the three-story building at the high school is not necessary because there are "videos and photos of the crime scene and would only serve to inflame the jurors’ passions." Judge Scherer, however, ruled that the probative value of the tour is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Although the jury is not being asked whether or not to determine if Cruz actually committed the murders because he took a plea of guilty, but rather whether or not he should be given the death penalty, the prosecutors want the jurors to take the same path that Cruz took through the building "to understand the carnage he unleashed as he walked methodically floor-to-floor, firing his semi-automatic rifle as he went."
While it may seem unusual for juries to tour crime scenes because this is not seen often, either side is permitted to request a tour if they believe it would help members of the jury to better understand the case. In fact, this is not the only high-profile case in which the jury has been given a tour of the crime scene. Many people may remember that in February of 1995, the jurors in the O.J. Simpson trial also took a tour of the crime scene, traveling in a 14-car caravan to the scene of the murder and then to Mr. Simpson's Brentwood estate. They were accompanied by motorcycle police officers who shut down freeway on-ramps so that the jury could ride unimpeded to Brentwood on the Sheriff's department bus, where they ate boxed lunches and chatted as if on a field trip. In contrast to the intended purpose of the tour in the Parkland trial, both the prosecution and the defense had reasons that they wanted the jury to see the scene of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson's murder. The prosecution wanted the jury to see how small the area was in order to negate the defense's argument that two assailants, not one, had committed this crime, while the defense wanted to use the visit to confront jurors with the more "positive" aspects of Simpson’s life, like the family photographs throughout the home, and his "room full of trophies given for his achievements on and off the football field." The jurors also visited Nicole's apartment, Ron Goldman's home, and the restaurant where he worked. They were not allowed to comment or ask questions during the tour, and at each stop were escorted by sheriff's deputies and lawyers for each side.
So what should we make of jurors being allowed to tour the scene of the crimes in question during their trials? On the one hand, it is important for jurors to understand the full gravity of a situation, especially in a case like the Parkland shooting, where 17 innocent children lost their lives and blood stains and bullet holes remain intact. On the other hand, it does have the opportunity to be prejudicial or biased- in the O.J. Simpson case, for example, Mr. Simpson's home had been virtually untouched since his arrest, allowing jurors to see elements of his personal life and humanity that they otherwise would not have seen. In sharp contrast, Nicole Brown's house was up for sale and stripped of any personal effects or reminders of the mother and children who once lived there.
