Juries

SCT to Hear Case Concerning All-White Jury

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to take up the case of Berghuis v. Smith, 08-1402.

According to the AP report, State officials are asking the high court to overturn a decision by the 6th U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

That court threw out the murder conviction of Diapolis Smith for shooting a man in Grand Rapids in 1991.

Smith, who is black, was found guilty by an all-white jury. He said his constitutional right to a jury that represents the community was violated because there were only three blacks in the pool of 60 to 100 prospective jurors.

He argued that Kent County's prospective jurors in 1993 were routinely excused because of child care, a lack of transportation or a conflict with work. Smith also said blacks in Grand Rapids were being diverted to jury duty in a city court, which took them off the rolls for a year.

Blacks in the city made up 85 percent of all blacks in the county.

The appeals court said those decisions resulted in fewer African-Americans being eligible for service on circuit court juries, calling it "systematic exclusion."

For more background information on Berghuis see the articles below.

Michigan AG appeals circuit court ruling

New trial -- or freedom -- ordered for 1993 conviction in Grand ...

US 6th Circuit Opinions (Published)

Russo v. Takata (Juror Conducting Research Prior to Empanellment)

Recently, the South Dakota Supreme Court in Russo v. Takata upheld a lower court's decision to order a new trial upon discovering that one of trial jurors had conducted research on the case prior to being empaneled as a juror.

The Takata case arose from a 1999 roll-over car accident in which a teenage driver died. Plaintiffs, who claimed that the seat belts in the car malfunctioned, brought a wrongful death claim against Takata, the seat belt manufacturers.

At trial, a jury ruled in favor of the defendant, Takata. However, the trial judge ordered a new trial after it was discovered that one juror had conducted extensive Internet research about Takata after receiving his jury summons, but prior to voir dire. During deliberations, the juror revealed, very briefly, his research about Takata.  Specifically, the juror told other jurors that the company had not been sued, which was incorrect. 

The juror's research never came out during voir dire because neither plaintiff nor defense counsel specifically inquired about whether any jurors had conducted research on Takata. Rather, jurors were asked general questions like whether they "know any of the folks here." In addition, the juror was not very forthcoming with information during the voir dire process.  

While the South Dakota Supreme Court's decision was unanimous, the Court made it very clear that this case does not provie a "hard and fast rule that all such types of internet research by a juror prior to trial without notice to the court and counsel automatically doom a jury’s verdict. Rather, as we do in such close cases, we give deference to the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of being present throughout the nineteen-day trial."

 

At trial, a jury ruled in favor of the defendant, Takata. However, the trial judge ordered a new trial after it was discovered that one juror had conducted extensive Internet research about Takata after receiving his jury summons, but prior to voir dire. During deliberations, the juror revealed, very briefly, his research about Takata.  Specifically, the juror told other jurors that the company had not been sued, which was incorrect. 

The juror's research never came out during voir dire because neither plaintiff nor defense counsel specifically inquired about whether any jurors had conducted research on Takata. Rather, jurors were asked general questions like whether they "know any of the folks here." In addition, the juror was not very forthcoming with information during the voir dire process.  

While the South Dakota Supreme Court's decision was unanimous, the Court made it very clear that this case does not provie a "hard and fast rule that all such types of internet research by a juror prior to trial without notice to the court and counsel automatically doom a jury’s verdict. Rather, as we do in such close cases, we give deference to the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of being present throughout the nineteen-day trial."

 

Jury News

Leagle: Background Checks of Jurors Routine

San Jose Mercury News: Possible relief for man sentenced to 292 years to life

Leader Telegram: Jurors crucial to legal system

Paradise Post: After apology, State drops charges against juror

Am Law Daily: Judges to Jurors: Stop Tweeting!

Massachusetts to Study Peremptory Challenges

Today, the state bar association in Massachusetts announced the creation of a task force to study peremptory challenges.  Specifically, the task force will look at how peremptory challenges have been used historically in the state and the implications of such use.  The list of the members of the task force can be found here.

New Jury Related Law Review Articles

 Ashley C. Owens Comment. The jury’s role in eminent domain compensation as explained in ...

(Metropolitan Water District of Southern California v. Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc.,

161 P.3d 1775, Cal. 2007.) 22 J. Nat. Resources & Envtl. L. 219-228 (2008-2009).

Andrea D. Lyon, Mixed media: popular culture and race and their effect on jury selection. 58 DePaul L. Rev. 681-687 (2009).

 

 

Lawyers on the Jury and Juror Bias

Here are two interesting articles discussing the problem of juror bias and how easily it can be raised when lawyers serve as jurors.  

Baltimore Sun: Did juror in murder trial have conflict of interest?

It was only after Circuit Judge Timothy J. Doory declared a mistrial that it emerged that the lone holdout for a verdict of voluntary manslaughter instead of first- or second-degree murder, as the 11 others wanted, was a defense attorney who works for the state public defender's office in the same courthouse in which the trial took place. She did not disclose her affiliation, even though an attorney from her office represented Key's co-defendant, who had earlier pleaded guilty and testified at Key's trial.

St. Claire Record: Rosewood moves to set aside trial citing juror bias

Attorneys haggled more than three hours Monday over charges of juror bias and judicial error during a hearing over Rosewood Care Center's motion for a new trial in a negligence case.

NBC Dateline to Air Widmer Juror Misconduct Case

Tonight (8 pm ET) NBC will examine the Widmer case in the season premier of Dateline.  For background on the Widmer case go here.  Below is the NBC write up on the story. 

COMING UP ON “DATELINE”  FRIDAY, SEPT. 18

“Dateline” makes its season premiere with “Behind Closed Doors.” Keith Morrison and Dennis Murphy report in separate hours about two  marriages that ended in an unsuspected death that had everyone  talking.

At 8PM, Morrison takes a look at a crime involving a perfectly modern couple. She was the breadwinner and he took care of the children. It worked fine, but then there were rumors of an affair, fights over the kids, and finally, an ugly divorce. The marriage was ending, but a crime even seasoned detectives would find hard to believe, was just about to begin.

And at 9PM, the case was controversial, and the verdict even more so – hundreds, in a typically quiet Ohio community, held vigils to protest. At the center of it all: young newlyweds, just settling into a new house and a new life together. Until something unsettling happened in the master bathroom. A sudden unexplained drowning. What had happened in that house? Dennis Murphy reports.

Inspecting Juror Records

The Blog of Legal Times (BLT) has an interesting post about a  case currently before the DC Court of Appeals, Larry A. Gause v. United States.  This case examines whether criminal defendants have the right to inspect jury pool records.  According to BLT,

The appeal before the court arose after two men challenged their armed robbery convictions on the grounds that the D.C. Superior Court system for selecting jurors violates due process rights and violates the D.C. Jury System Act. The defendants, Larry Gause and Karlepa Wilkey, questioned the fairness of the jury pool, but were denied access to juror records. Lawyers for Gause and Wilkey have argued that the D.C. Superior Court system for picking juries systematically excludes African-American residents of the District.

 

 

Jury News

The News Press Jurors lose their free lunch

Houston Chronicle Utah Supreme Court to hear Jeffs appeal arguments (major issue here is the replacement of a juror during deliberations)

Tech Dirt Why Do We Let Juries Set Patent Award Damages? Appeals Court ...

Dallas Morning News Juries slow to reach courtrooms today with new system

KVIA Santa Fe Magistrate Court implements jury process

LA Times Juror in celebrity fashion designer case fined $1000 for contempt

New York Daily News Forget the book, this juror threw a chair! Merck case ends in Mistrial

 

 

 

Jurors Required to Affirm that They Will not Research the Case

In the continuing battle to limit what information jurors receive, a California court is requiring jurors to sign declarations attesting that they will not use “personal electronic and media devices” to research or communicate about any aspect of the case. That includes computers, cell phones and laptops. Jurors will have to sign the declarations, made under penalty of perjury, both before and after they serve Read More.

Revised jury instructions: Do not use the Internet

Unlike other efforts to rein in the use of electronic communication devices by jurors, this proposal appears to up the ante by requiring jurors to positively affirm before and after a trial that they have not used personal electronic and media devices to research or discuss the case.  An obvious consequence of this proposal, if implemented state-wide, is that jurors will be even less inclined to serve on jury duty.  

I believe a better approach to this issue of jurors and technology is to go to the root of the problem-jurors wanting more infromation about the case.  This issue can be more readily addressed by loosening the rules on evidence and providing jurors additional information at trial to include allowing them through the judge to ask questions of witnesses.