Juries

Jury News

Philadelphia Inquirer: Catholic backgrounds of juror candidates impacting who gets chosen ...

Reuters: 'Desperate Housewives' Trial: Potential Jurors Turn TV Critics

Kansas City Star: Death row inmate tests North Carolina's Racial Justice Act

‎Belleville News Democrat: Child-abuse cases can be emotional for juries; 4 high-profile ...

MSNBC.com: Dimora's jury gets special notebooks

 

Is a Sleeping Jury Harmless Error? New Comment

Rhandi Childress, Comment, Convicted by a Sleeping Jury: A Harmless Error or a Challenge to the Integrity of Our Criminal Justice System, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 751 (2011).

Juror Counseling in North Carolina

As discussed in the article below, North Carolina (a few other states have made similar efforts) recently announced a program to assist jurors who suffer from undue stress from their jury service. While it is great that North Carolina has recognized that jury duty can, at times, be stressful, the mental health services offered are fairly limited. Since this is just a pilot program, I am hoping that in the future, jurors receive more in the way of mental health services.

News & Observer: NC jurors get way to help cope

Jurors in trials where judges determine that the evidence might cause mental distress will be given a toll-free number to contact a licensed mental-health professional for what Smith called "one confidential telephonic triage or face-to-face assessment." During the assessment, the jurors' needs will be identified and appropriate resources recommended. If additional counseling is needed beyond the initial visit, jurors will be referred to either a provider in their health plan or to an affordable community resource.

‎

Getting the Court to Appoint a Jury Consultant in a High Profile Criminal Case: New Comment

Kate Early, Comment, The Impact of Pretrial Publicity on an Indigent Capital Defendant's Due Process Right to a Jury Consultant,  16 Roger Williams U.L. Rev. 687 (2011).

This article discusses how defendants, especially those facing capital crimes, can get the court to appoint a trial consultant to their case.

Bus Passes and Jurors (Knappett vs. King County Metro)

In Knappett v. King County Metro, a Washington appellate case, Knappett sued the bus company because he sustained injuries "after slipping while exiting the bus on a rainy day."  According to the plaintiff, the "yellow nosing strips, located at the edges of the stairs of Metro buses, become dangerously slippery when wet." 

In an ironic twist, the jurors deciding the case were provided King County Metro bus passes by the court so that they would not have to pay transportation costs associated with jury duty.  Apparently, this was standard procedure at the courthouse for all jurors. Both sides were aware that the court provided jurors bus passes.

Following a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, a juror came forward and revealed that he "had tested the slipperiness of a yellow nosing strip while exiting a Metro bus on the last day of trial."  Upon learning this information, "Metro moved for a new trial based on juror misconduct [among other things].  The trial court denied the motion."  The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision finding that the actions of the jurors [two jurors actually tested the nosing strip but the appellate court focused primarily on the actions of one particular juror] was not misconduct nor did it affect the verdict.  

As a general rule, jurors may rely on their life experiences when deciding a case.  However, they may not rely on extrinsic evidence this includes conducting experiments to learn information not introduced into evidence.  In this case, the trial judge found that stepping on the yellow nosing strip was not extrinsic evidence but rather part of a juror's "everyday experiences during the trial." The trial court further noted that "[e]verbody knew they [jurors]were going to have to step on those strips getting on and off the buses."  The trial court also pointed out that "Metro possessed all the information necessary to conclude that jurors might encounter the yellow nosing strips as part of their everyday experience during the trial...and jurors would naturally bring this knowledge with them into deliberations." 

The trial court concluded by finding that because the juror's "observations were consistent with the uncontroverted evidence adduced at trial, it could not have prejudiced Metro's case."

 

Jury News

WSB Atlanta: Juror fights for wrongly accused counselor

‎The Republic: Chicago-area man alleges employer illegally fired him for federal ...

‎The Advocate: Prosecutors wary on jury legislation

‎Wall Street Journal: NJ jury pool shrinks in Rutgers webcam spying case

‎Roanoke Times: Senate passes bill allowing hung juries to be replaced for sentencing hearings

The Huguely Jurors and Social Media

The article below discusses the potential distractions that face the jurors deciding the UVA Lacrosse murder case in which George Huguely is accused of killing Yeardley Love.  Of particular concern is the possibility that jurors, prior to issuing a verdict, will discuss or learn information about the case via social media.  This is one reason why defense counsel had requested jury sequestration at the outset of the trial.  This request, however, was denied. 

If the Huguely jurors for some reason ignore the court's instructions about using social media, the article offers the trial judge some practical advice from Judge Dennis Sweeney (ret.), don't "overreact."  As some may recall, Judge Sweeney had his own run in with jurors who like to interact via Facebook (corruption trial of former Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon).  Besides his experience with the Dixon trial, Judge Sweeney has also lectured and written on the topic of jurors using social media.

Baltimore Sun: In Limbo, Huguely Jury Must Avoid Distractions

 

 

 

Motion for New Trial for Dishonest Juror

Here is the link to the motion for a new trial in the Paul Daugerdas case.  Daugerdas and his co-defendants were convicted of tax fraud for creating illegal tax shelters last year.  The defendants are now requesting a new trial because one of the jurors (#1) who decided the case lied repeatedly during voir dire e.g., she failed to disclose that she was a disbarred attorney with an outstanding warrant.  In addition, this juror, at the conclusion of the case, sent the prosecution a congratulatory letter.  The defendants have a real chance of succeeding on their motion.  The one potential stumbling block concerns whether counsel for defendants was aware or should have been aware of Juror #1's true identity before the jury returned a verdict.

 

Juror Gets 3 Days in Jail for Friend Request to Defendant

It appears that at least one U.S. court is taking a tough stance on jurors who violate the court's rules on improper communications.  Today, a juror in Sarasota County, Florida was sentenced to 3 days in jail for sending a Facebook Friend request to the defendant. 

Up to this point, most American courts, unlike in Britain, have avoided sentencing jurors to jail for violating court rules on improper communications. It will be interesting to see if this case is an anomaly or  marks a change in the approach taken by American judges in dealing with Digital Jurors.   Since some believe that this particular juror might have purposely sent the Friend request in order to be dismissed from jury duty (on Facebook the juror bragged about getting kicked of the jury), I am not sure that other judges will necessarily follow in the footsteps of this Florida trial judge and incarcerate jurors for failing to follow court rules about communicating with others. 

Miami Herald: Juror gets 3 days in jail for Facebook request‎

USA Today: Juror jailed for contempt for 'friending' defendant‎

CSI Effect in Australia

At present there is an on going debate as to whether legal television dramas like CSI impact juror decision making.  There are many in academia who believe that they do not.  There are just as many practitioners who believe that they do.  I find myself somewhere in the middle leaning more towards the practitioners' side.  The difficulty of course with the debate is proving it one way or the other. 

The article below offers some evidence that CSI and other legal dramas are impacting jurors.  For example, the article cites a study where some Australian jurors when faced with difficult jury instructions "slipp[ed] into what they learn on television.''  In that same study, conducted by Psychologist Professor James Ogloff,  many Australian jurors referenced the famous holding of Miranda v. Arizona despite the fact that this American case has no application or relevance in the Australian criminal legal system nor was this case ever raised or discussed during trial.

The Age: US legal dramas confuse juries

‎