Juries

Jury Waivers: New Law Review Article

Richard L. Peterson. Comment. Unintelligent Jury Waivers a Call to Amend Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a), 21 Geo. Mason U. Civil Rights L.J. 441 (2011).

Introduction: In one case, a defendant's counsel files a motion to waive jury trial with the district court. Although the defendant never signed the waiver, the trial court approves it without informing him on the record of its implications.  The appellate court affirms the waiver.  In another case, a defendant's counsel files a motion waiving her right to trial by jury.  Once again, the defendant has not signed the waiver, and the court does not inform her on the record of the nature and consequences of the waiver.  But this time, the waiver is found invalid on appeal.

Neither defendant signed a written waiver or made an oral waiver; however, one defendant received a new trial while the other did not. This unequal treatment of a defendant's right to trial by jury warrants a careful look at the existing law. The constitutional right to trial by jury and the implementation of laws and rules protecting that right should be scrutinized to ensure that courts do not violate the similarly situated principle, that is, that rules should be scrutinized to ensure that courts do not treat similarly situated persons differently.

Juror News

Chicago Sun Times: Juror lunches take bite out of court budget

MSNBC.com: Hankton Relative Poses As Juror, Police Say

Florida Today: Judge denies mistrial over juror

Nashua Telegraph: Juror misconduct leads judge to declare mistrial in assault case

‎

Latest Edition of the Jury Expert

Here are the articles from the latest edition of the Jury Expert which is published by the American Society of Trial Consultants.

Eureka! Moments on the Path to Successful Visual Presentations in the Courtroom  Suann Ingle, M.S., and Nancy J. Geenen, M.A. Ed., J.D.  

Tinnitus audio exhibit admitted as evidence 

Neal Feigenson 

Using Self-Efficacy for Witness Preparation 

Robert J. Cramer, Ph.D., Caroline H. Stroud, B.A. and Matthew Ferrara, Ph.D. 

Red Ink and Red Tape: Understanding the Challenges in our Current Civil Trial System 

Richard Gabriel 

Fooled by numbers: Why people think that 24 months takes longer than 2 years 

Mario Pandelaere 

I'm a lawyer. Why should I care about typography? 

Matthew Butterick 

Trial Strategy Using Social Media Analytics: Not Just For High Publicity Cases 

Diana Greninger and Amy Singer, Ph.D. 

Artful Dodging in the Courtroom 

Todd Rogers and Michael Norton 

Friend or Foe? Social Media, the Jury and You 

Leslie Ellis, Ph.D. 

 

Weight Based Peremptory Challenges: New Law Review Article

Maggie E. O'Grady, A Jury of Your Skinny Peers: Weight-Based Peremptory Challenges and the Culture of Fat Bias, 7 Stan. J. C.R. & C.L. 47 (2011).

Introduction: It is legal to discriminate against someone because he or she is fat.  In the context of peremptory challenges, not only is such discrimination legal, but an integral part of the justice system's often fruitless pursuit of an impartial jury.  Peremptory challenges are granted by statute and allow attorneys to strike a certain number of potential jurors at the onset of jury selection, based on the belief that they may be biased against the attorney's client. An attorney may not issue a peremptory challenge against a prospective juror because of the juror's race,  sex,  or national origin,  but an attorney may strike a juror based on the juror's weight.

MA Judges May Ask Jurors About CSI Effect

While the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court may doubt the existence of the CSI Effect, it recently ruled in Commonwealth v. Perez that it was not an abuse of discretion for trial judges to pose CSI-related questions to potential jurors.

Boston Globe: Mass. high court OKs questions for jurors about 'CSI effect'

The state’s highest court has ruled that a judge was allowed to question potential jurors during jury selection about the “CSI effect” – whether they would expect prosecutors to produce scientific evidence to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Judicial Court, in an opinion written by Justice Fernande R.V. Duffly, rejected the claims by the defendant in an Essex County murder case that the questioning denied him his constitutional rights to a fair trial by an impartial jury.

The court said that while anecdotes have circulated and the media has reported on it, there is “little empirical evidence” supporting the theory that jurors who watch forensic science TV shows such as CBS-TV’s popular CSI franchise will hold prosecutors to an unreasonably high standard of proof.

But the court also said some jurisdictions allow judges to ask jurors about their views on forensic or scientific evidence. And the court noted a state appeals court decision upholding a conviction where a similar question was posed to jurors.

The high court said judges are allowed a large degree of discretion in the jury selection process and concluded that the trial judge had not abused his discretion and tilted the case toward the prosecution.

“The questions were tailored to ensure that seated jurors were capable of deciding the case without bias and based on the evidence,” the court said.

“The questions did not commit the jury to a verdict in advance and, as posed, did not have the effect of identifying and selecting jurors who were predisposed to convicting the defendant based on evidence the Commonwealth would present,” the court added.

The court also pointed out that the questions didn’t suggest to jurors that they were not allowed to consider a lack of scientific evidence when determining whether reasonable doubt existed.

At the request of prosecutors, the trial judge had asked potential jurors whether they believed “the Commonwealth is never able to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt unless it presents scientific evidence to corroborate witness testimony.” Thirty-eight people either said yes or “responded ambiguously.” Thirty-one of that 38 were excused from the jury...for more information about the CSI Effect go here.

 

Unique Voir Dire Questions

This week the media reported on several trials in which prospective jurors were asked rather unique voir dire questions.

Star Ledger: Judge in slain Chatham priest trial probes jurors' views on sex and religion

Is there anything about the Catholic Church or Catholic priests that would cause you to not be a fair and impartial juror?

 Is there anything about the Catholic Church or Catholic priests and the sexual abuse cases that have been reported in recent years that would prevent you from being a fair and impartial juror?

General questions about religion ask if people are members of the clergy and if they are members of a church, mosque or temple. If they do belong to a house of worship, a two-part question asks

Are you on the governing bodies of your religious community? What is the name of that religious community? to continue reading go here.

NY Times: Unusual Question to Jurors: How Do You Like the Mayor?

One after another, they stitched together a collage of thoughts about Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, responding as to whether they had formed opinions about him.

“Some good, some bad,” one woman said.

“The third term I was bothered by,” a man said.

“Doing a good job,” a different man said. “I like him.”

“I don’t particularly like what he is doing with the Board of Education,” offered another man, who added, however, that he was a fan of the mayor’s bike lanes.

This impromptu focus group on Tuesday was convened in a rather unlikely place: a jury box...to continue reading go here.

‎

New Publication on Juror Decision-Making

Brad Bradshaw has a new book on juror decision-making entitled, The Science of Persuasion: A Litigators Guide to Juror Decision-Making.

Here is a brief description of the book:

This new book is your thorough guide to the way jurors make decisions, and how you can use that knowledge to convince them that your story of a case is the correct version. The author--who holds a Ph.D in psychology, for which he researched persuasion and juror decision-making--walks you though every stage of the trial and offers comprehensive information on what jurors are thinking when, and how to influence them in the most effective ways.

Here is a brief description of the author

Gregory (Brad) Bradshaw is the president of Bradshaw Litigation Consulting, LLC. He has a Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Kentucky where his research included persuasion and juror decision-making. Dr. Bradshaw is a minimalist, a cancer survivor, and a marathon runner, who has been reducing cases to their simplest terms since 2001. Nothing is more important to him than his friends and family.

Media Still Wants Juror Questionnaires from Chandra Levy Homicide Trial

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: DC court considers release of Levy juror questionnaires

A three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals weighed Tuesday whether the questionnaires of jurors who convicted the killer of former intern Chandra Levy should be made public.

The Washington Post, Associated Press, Gannett Co., Inc. and The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a motion last November in U.S. v. Guandeque seeking the release of trial evidence and questionnaires filled out by potential jurors during the selection process known as voir dire. Guandeque, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, was found guilty of Levy's death and sentenced to 60 years in prison.

The issue of evidence was resolved before the end of the trial, but Judge Gerald I. Fisher kept the 11-page, 55-question questionnaires sealed, electing instead to release only each juror's age, gender, occupation and educational level.

The Washington Post appealed the ruling, urging the appellate court to release the questionnaires of the 16 jurors and alternates ultimately empanelled to hear the case.

At Tuesday's hearing, counsel for the government conceded that Fisher erred in sealing the documents, since the 1984 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court created a presumption of access to voir dire proceedings under the First Amendment. Most of the hearing was spent discussing what action the appellate court should direct Fisher to take now, given his pledge to the jury that questionnaire answers would remain confidential….to continue reading go here.

Juror Pledges and Internet Use

NY Times: Judge Considers Pledge for Jurors on Internet Use

‎A few moments later, Judge Scheindlin told the lawyers that she would write a pledge that jurors might be required to sign, promising that they would not turn to the Web to look up Mr. Bout or anything related to his trial until it was over.

Those who signed the pledge, Judge Scheindlin said, would be subject to perjury charges if they broke the agreement.

While it is not clear whether other judges have used similar measures, several lawyers and experts said they did not know of any other instances...to continue reading go here.

Jurors to be Anonymous in Trial of Underwear Bomber

Yahoo: 'Underwear bomber' trial jurors granted anonymity

The US judge overseeing the upcoming trial of a Nigerian man accused of trying to blow up a packed transatlantic airliner laid out strict rules Friday to protect the identities of jurors.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 24, was arrested after the botched Christmas Day 2009 plot attributed to Al-Qaeda, in which explosives allegedly stitched into his underwear failed to detonate aboard a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam as it prepared to land in Detroit.

Passengers and crew were able to restrain Abdulmutallab and put out the small fire aboard the flight, which was carrying 279 passengers and 11 crew.

The foiled bombing triggered global alarm, leading the United States to adopt stringent new screening and security measures at airports worldwide.

Judge Nancy Edmunds cited "intense media and public interest" in laying out rules governing conduct of observers at the trial. Any violations could lead to contempt of court or obstruction of justice charges, she said.

Some 250 prospective jurors are set to fill out questionnaires on Wednesday ahead of jury selection on October 4, with opening statements expected one week later.

Edmunds banned any contact with prospective jurors and the 16 people ultimately chosen to hear the case and laid out safeguards to protect their anonymity...to continue reading go here.