Unring the bell
Encyclopedia
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." 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.
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 hay
stacks. 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):
in the case USA v Lowis. Gary Lowis was arrested for possession of amphetamine
and marijuana. Between that arrest and the subsequent trial, he was arrested a second time on similar charges. Before trial in United States District Court
on the first arrest, the judge granted a defense motion to exclude
evidence of the second arrest. However, during testimony a police witness quoted a statement made by Lowis after the second arrest. The judge later instructed the jury to disregard that portion of the evidence.
Lowis appeal
ed his subsequent conviction, arguing, among other things, that the statements were so prejudicial to him that in spite of the judge's best efforts in instructing the jury to disregard that evidence, as a practical matter it was impossible to "unring the bell." Addressing the evidence admitted in error, the appeals court wrote that that evidence was "not a very loud bell" and the judge's instructions to the jury were adequate to "unring" it. Lowis' conviction was upheld.
In its ruling in USA v Lowis, the appeals court provides us some background and mentions a few other phrases (citations removed):
Analogy
Analogy is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject to another particular subject , and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process...
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
Admissible evidence
Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—in order to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding...
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
Kobe Bryant sexual assault case
The Kobe Bryant sexual assault case began in the summer of 2003 when the news media reported that the sheriff's office in Eagle, Colorado had arrested NBA superstar Kobe Bryant in connection with an investigation of a sexual assault complaint filed by a 19-year-old hotel employee...
, jury consultant
Jury research
Jury research is an umbrella term for various methods of research associated with jury trials. It could include prospective jurors demographic research, mock trials, jury selection, shadow jury or post-trial jury interviews...
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." In a more recent case, judge Reggie Walton
Reggie Walton
Reggie Barnett Walton is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.-Early life and education :...
said that he could not "unring the bell" when he declared a mistrial in the Roger Clemens
Roger Clemens
William Roger Clemens , nicknamed "Rocket", is a former Major League Baseball pitcher who broke into the league with the Boston Red Sox, whose pitching staff he would help anchor for 12 years. Clemens won seven Cy Young Awards, more than any other pitcher. He played for four different teams over...
perjury trial.
In Oregon v. Rader
One of the earliest reported legal references to unringing a bell can be found in the Oregon Supreme CourtOregon Supreme Court
The Oregon Supreme Court is the highest state court in the U.S. state of Oregon. The only court that may reverse or modify a decision of the Oregon Supreme Court is the Supreme Court of the United States. The OSC holds court at the Oregon Supreme Court Building in Salem, Oregon, near the capitol...
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
Arson
Arson is the crime of intentionally or maliciously setting fire to structures or wildland areas. It may be distinguished from other causes such as spontaneous combustion and natural wildfires...
for allegedly burning two hay
Hay
Hay is grass, legumes or other herbaceous plants that have been cut, dried, and stored for use as animal fodder, particularly for grazing livestock such as cattle, horses, goats, and sheep. Hay is also fed to pets such as rabbits and guinea pigs...
stacks. 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
Thomas A. McBride
Thomas Allen McBride was an American attorney and judge in Oregon. He was the 20th Chief Justice on the Oregon Supreme Court serving three times as chief between 1913 and 1927...
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.
In USA v. Lowis
The phrase also appears several times in the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the courts in the following districts:* Central District of Illinois* Northern District of Illinois...
in the case USA v Lowis. Gary Lowis was arrested for possession of amphetamine
Amphetamine
Amphetamine or amfetamine is a psychostimulant drug of the phenethylamine class which produces increased wakefulness and focus in association with decreased fatigue and appetite.Brand names of medications that contain, or metabolize into, amphetamine include Adderall, Dexedrine, Dextrostat,...
and marijuana. Between that arrest and the subsequent trial, he was arrested a second time on similar charges. Before trial in United States District Court
United States district court
The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal court system. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of law, equity, and admiralty. There is a United States bankruptcy court associated with each United States...
on the first arrest, the judge granted a defense motion to exclude
Motion to suppress
In common law legal systems, a motion to suppress is a formal, written request to a judge for an order that certain evidence be excluded from consideration by the judge or jury at trial...
evidence of the second arrest. However, during testimony a police witness quoted a statement made by Lowis after the second arrest. The judge later instructed the jury to disregard that portion of the evidence.
Lowis appeal
Appeal
An appeal is a petition for review of a case that has been decided by a court of law. The petition is made to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision....
ed his subsequent conviction, arguing, among other things, that the statements were so prejudicial to him that in spite of the judge's best efforts in instructing the jury to disregard that evidence, as a practical matter it was impossible to "unring the bell." Addressing the evidence admitted in error, the appeals court wrote that that evidence was "not a very loud bell" and the judge's instructions to the jury were adequate to "unring" it. Lowis' conviction was upheld.
In its ruling in USA v Lowis, the appeals court provides us some background and mentions a few other phrases (citations removed):
"Unring the bell" is a good analogy which can save a lot of words in making the point. That phrase originated, as far as we can find, in Sandez v. United States [1956], and was elaborated on in Dunn v. United States, which added other pertinent analogies. "After the thrust of the saber it is difficult to forget the wound," was another, and then the most colorful one of all, "If you throw a skunk into the jury box, you can't instruct the jury not to smell it." In the present case there was no skunk thrown in the jury box. As also mentioned in Dunn, "Trials are rarely, if ever, perfect, but gross imperfections should not go unnoticed." We find no gross imperfections which would overpower the district court's instruction to the jury to disregard Lowis' statement.