Arizona is one of the few jurisdictions that allow juries to submit questions to witnesses during the trial. As you know, examination and cross-examination are limited to trial counsel. Submitting so many questions is really a slap in the face of the prosecutor as it suggests that his cross of the defendant was deficient. Of course, any juror question is subject to the same evidentiary rules and either side may pose objections.

Juries in all jurisdictions may submit written questions to the judge while deliberating. The questions are reviewed with the attorneys in private and they discuss how the question will be answered before the jury is reassembled. Normally these questions involve matters of law outlined during the judge's jury instructions, such as "what are the elements of the crime" or "what is reasonable doubt."

In PA and many other jurisdiction when jurors ask questions about specific points of testimony, they are told to use their recollection to the best of their ability. Transcripts are not provided, nor are statements reread for this purpose.

I frankly don't favor allowing the jurors to ask direct questions of the witnesses as I don't think it is useful in the fact determining process. A prosecutor can and should sufficiently prepare examination questions to support his or her case in an organized fashion. Jurors, unschooled in the elements of particular crimes, are prone to inquire into matters, which may be irrelevant or unduly prejudicial.