|
In law, unring the bell is an analogy used to suggest the difficulty of forgetting information once it is known. When discussing jury trials, the phrase is sometimes used to describe the judge's instructions to the jury to ignore inadmissible evidence or statements they have heard. It may also be used if inadmissible evidence has been brought before a jury and the judge subsequently declares a mistrial. Commenting on Court TV about the pre-trial release of nearly 200 pages of documents from a hearing on the sexual activities of the accuser in the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case, jury consultant Idgi D'Andrea said, "It's really hard to unring the bell, once that bell has been rung, and ask people to forget what they've heard."〔 (Bryant lawyers seek best-suited jurors from diverse pool )〕 In a more recent case, judge Reggie Walton said that he could not "unring the bell" when he declared a mistrial in the Roger Clemens perjury trial.〔(Video triggers mistrial in Clemens perjury case ), CNN.com, July 14, 2011〕 ==In Oregon v. Rader== One of the earliest reported legal references to unringing a bell can be found in the Oregon Supreme Court case ''State v. Rader'', 62 Ore. 37; 124 P. 195, argued on May 9, 1912, decided on May 28, 1912. In that case, the defendant, Frederick Rader, indicted as Fritz Rader, was tried and convicted of the crime of arson for allegedly burning two haystacks. The prosecution’s theory was that Rader did so in retaliation for the victim’s reporting another crime (that Rader had cut off the tail of one of the victim’s cows). At trial, the victim was permitted to testify concerning Rader's alleged tail-cutting. The court ruled that improper testimony had been admitted and it constituted a reversible error. Chief Justice McBride noted (at p. 40): While in some cases an express instruction to the jury to disregard testimony injuriously admitted is properly held to cure the error, yet the courts are cautious in the application of this rule. It is not an easy task to unring a bell, nor to remove from the mind an impression once firmly imprinted there, and the withdrawal of the testimony should be so emphatic as to leave no doubt in the mind of the juror as to the unequivocal repudiation by the court of the erroneously admitted matter, and even then, in a case where the testimony is evenly balanced or contradictory, courts hesitate to sanction such withdrawal, though it seems absolutely necessary to permit this course in some instances. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Unring the bell」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|