Juries

Judge Sweeney Speaks on the Dixon Trial

Retired state judge Dennis Sweeney (no stranger to this blog) recently spoke to the Maryland State Bar Association about the corruption trial of former Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon.  His presentation was entitled, "The Internet, Social Media and Jury Trials: Lessons Learned from the Dixon Trial."  Judge Sweeney's presentation offers up some pretty sage advice on what steps to take in order to keep jurors on the straight and narrow in the Digital Age.

Judge Sweeney's presentation is definitely worth the read: Download Judge Sweeney

New Law Review Article

Richard C. Worf, The Effect of State Law on the Judge-Jury Relationship in Federal Court, 30 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 109-167 (2009)

Introduction:

Rules governing the relationship between judge and jury are some of the most important in any piece of litigation. The allocation of issues to judge or jury determines who will ultimately decide the case. Rules relating to sufficiency of the evidence determine whether the case will even go to the jury. Commentators have long maintained that judge-jury rules are solely matters of federal law, even in cases where state law provides the rule of decision.

This view relies not on the Seventh Amendment, but instead on a single, old Supreme Court case, Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., which purportedly establishes an enclave of federal law around the judge-jury relationship.

This article challenges the conventional wisdom, and shows that under

Erie principles, state law should exert meaningful influence in the judge-jury area. In a relatively recent decision—Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.—the Supreme Court held that the standard for granting a new trial, on the ground of excessive compensatory damages, is provided by state law. Because the Court held that this crucial judge-jury issue is governed by state law, it is no longer possible to assert that federal law has a monopoly in the judge-jury field.

 

How Texas Deals with Jury Duty Scofflaws

Houston Chronicle: Student brought to court in chains for shirking jury duty‎

A 19-year-old college freshman missed class Tuesday when a federal judge decided to teach her a civics lesson by ordering federal marshals to haul her in chains from school to court to explain why she shirked jury duty...to continue reading go here.

Anonymous Jury

The federal district judge in the terrorism trial of Syed Hashmi has decided, despite the arguments put forward by defense counsel, to empanel an anonymous jury.  While there have been anonymous juries in previous terrorism trials, this decision here is somewhat troubling because of the reported rationale relied on by the trial judge for her decision. According to media reports, the judge in the case stated that "anonymity will assist in jurors being more willing to admit to possible biases...[and] will probably encourage the giving of truthful answers." 

While anonymous juries are necessary at times to ensure the safety of jurors, they do not facilitate truth telling by jurors.  Just the opposite, they encourage jurors to be less truthful because jurors realize that no one can verify their answers.  There are numerous examples of both the media and attorneys uncovering less than honest jurors (see for example the Jose Padilla case). However, for this to happen one needs to know  who is sitting on the jury.  

Media outlets reporting on the story include.

Jury to Be Anonymousin Trial of Ex-Student Accused of Aiding Al Qaeda New York Times

 

Rebuffing Defense Objections, Federal Judge Authorizes Anonymous Jury in NY ... The National Law Journal

 

NY judge: Anonymous jury will hear terrorism trial The Associated Press

Beauty Matters

This article discusses the impact of a defendant's attractiveness on jurors in criminal trials.

Daily News and Analysis: Jurors less likely to convict attractive people

A new study has found that the more good-looking people are, the less likely they are to be convicted of an offence...The study, 'When Emotionality Trumps Reason', is to be published in the academic journal Behavioral Sciences & the Law...to continue reading go here.

Military vs. Civilian Juries

Here is an interesting article that compares the sentences issued by a military court-martial panel with that of a civilian criminal jury.  The issue has gained increased importance with the passage of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act which gives the federal government greater authority to try individuals to include members of the military in civilian court for crimes committed outside the United States.  For example, if a member of the military commits a crime in Iraq but goes unpunished by the military and subsequently leaves military service, he or she can be prosecuted in the United States.  In some instances, as discussed in the article, the punishment may be more severe in the civilian court as opposed to the military court-martial.

A Panel of Their Peers

Prosecutors sought the death penalty for Green, but jurors spared his life when they failed to agree unanimously. Instead, Green received five consecutive life terms with no chance for release.

But he complains that his co-defendants got the deal of the century. The military did not seek the death penalty, instead using it to extract guilty pleas from the three. This resulted in sentences of 90 years for Barker, 100 years for Cortez and 110 years for Spielman, with each eligible for release in 10 years provided they testified against Green, the sole shooter...to continue reading go here.

Juror Allegedly Researches Case on YouTube

There are developing allegations about a juror in Louisville, KY who apparently went to YouTube to watch a video program about the case on which she was sitting.  The case involved the strangulation of a 43-year old mother of 7 and was featured on the A&E crime show, "The First 48."  The revelations about the juror's actions were made shortly after the jury recommended that the defendant be sentenced to 4 years.

Interestingly, the prosecution (probably unhappy about the proposed sentence), not the defense, is pushing for a mistrial based on the juror's alleged actions.  The judge in the case has ordered a hearing on the alleged juror misconduct in May, which is one month before the defendant is formally sentenced.

WAVE: Question of juror misconduct raised in murder trial

Louisville Courier Journal: Request for mistrial rejected after juror watches police show

Jury News

The Moscow Times: Court Upholds Ban on Jury Trials for Terror Suspects

Associated Press: Feds don't want Blago jury told about suicide 

Augusta Chronicle: Court orders hearing for juror gifts

Spokesman Review: Juror's cell-phone 'net surfing prompts mistrial

The Age (Australia):  No-show juror in hot water over 'stupid' actions

Post-Star: When jurors see videos, what don't they see?

Judge on Jury Duty Sends E-mails about Case

For the 10% of the population who don't believe that the Digital Age has impacted jurors, see the article below posted on the online ABA Journal.  The article states that a California judge who made it on to a jury was sending e-mails to his fellow judges about the case.

Lawyer May Cite Judge-Juror’s ‘Livin’ the Dream’ E-Mails in New Trial Bid

A California judge picked to serve on a jury in a murder trial was apparently excited about his stint on the other side of the bench.

Judge James Oppliger of Fresno County sent four e-mails about his jury service to a group of more than 20 judges, according to stories in the Fresno Bee, KFSN-TV and CBS47. "Here I am livin' the dream, jury duty with Mugridge and Jenkins!” the two lawyers on the case, wrote Oppliger, who was selected to be jury foreman.

One of the judges who received the e-mails was the presiding judge, Arlan Harrell, who didn’t mention the communications until after the jury convicted the defendant of second-degree murder, the Fresno Bee says. The newspaper published a sample of the e-mails(PDF), which did not mention the evidence in the case.

Defense lawyer David Mugridge says he is weighing whether to seek a new trial based on the e-mails.

The Future of Jury Trials in Britain

This article discusses the potential implications for future non-jury trials in Britain. 

 Practical consequences of Twomey case for non-jury trials

...Section 44 of the CJA 2003 may be the first provision to be utilised to enable a non-jury trial, but it will not be the last. Section 43 of the same legislation, while not yet in force, is lurking in the wings. Providing for judge-only trials in cases of long and complex fraud trials, the effective use of section 44 will inevitably be deployed in support of section 43. It may also lead to the increased use of section 17 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which allows for some, but not all, counts on an indictment to be tried without a jury...to read the article in its entirety go here.