It is this process which offers the greatest challenge to the jurors. In principle they are to objectively evaluate only the facts brought out by the opposing attorneys and to disregard subjective aspects based on emotions, prejudice, bias, race, gender and other non-relevant issues brought out by the attorneys during the trial process. Non-objective issues governing the verdict were clearly evident in the Menendez brothers and O. J. Simpson cases for example. Verdicts based on non-objective issues often lead to a diminished confidence in the judicial process as demonstrated by these cases. If a lawyer, during the trial admits some statement of fact made by the other side to be true, or the lawyers of both sides, either before or during the trial, agree or stipulate that certain things are true, you must accept as true the facts admitted or stipulated.
Exhibits are evidence.
A deposition is the written testimony of a witness. If any statement is made by a lawyer which differs from you recollection of what the evidence was, you must rely on our own recollection. Sometimes remarks reflecting favorably or unfavorably upon the case or upon someone connected with it, are made in the hearing of jurors. Presumably, you do not know the person who makes the remark. Such person has not been sworn nor cross-examined and you do not know that persons interest, motive, bias or source of information.