Juries

Law Firm’s Website Should Stay Up Despite Googling Jurors

This week a California appellate court ruled (Steiner v. Volkswagen Group of America) that it was unconstitutional for a trial judge to order an attorney to remove information about prior courtroom victories from her law firm's website. The appellate court found the trial judge's actions to be an "unlawful prior restraint on the attorney's free speech rights under the First Amendment." Apparently, the trial judge had ordered the removal on behalf of defendant's counsel who thought that jurors might Google the attorney and discover that she obtained victories in two cases that raised similar issues to the ones being tried. Rather than direct the attorney to remove the information, the appellate court determined that the judge should have issued admonitions to the jury not to research or investigate the case or the parties involved.

To read a more in-depth law review article about the issue of jurors researching cases and parties go here. To read news articles about this case go here.

Colonial Juries in India: New Law Review Article

New law review article by Kalyani Ramnath

The Colonial Difference between Law and Fact: Notes on the Criminal Jury in India
Indian Economic and Social History Review Vol. 50 (2013), p. 341

ABSTRACT: This article tracks the rise and fall of criminal jury in colonial India through official and non-official debates, discussions and interventions. The discussion on criminal juries in the Anglo-American system has typically focused on the division of legal labour between judge and jury. In colonial India, this conventional difference between ‘law’ and ‘fact’ were shaped by notions of belonging to a different race, religion and language. These were frequently articulated as the story of the ‘unreliable’ juror or the ‘religious’ native who feared eternal damnation. From the jurors who were allegedly intoxicated by the publicity over the infamous Nanavati trial to women jurors who claimed to be followed on the way home from court, to the religious Brahmin juror who would not swear an oath, the story of the criminal jury is peopled with anxieties over undesirable forms of influence, that impinge on legal impartiality. Using the criminal jury as a lens, I look at the claims of universal legal reform as particularly lending themselves to contestations over sovereignty.

 

JonBenet Ramsey 1999 Grand Jury Indictment now Available

In 1999, a Boulder County Grand Jury issued a True Bill charging the parentsof JonBenet Ramsey with Child Abuse Resulting in Death.  However, the prosecutor, who presented the evidence to the grand jury, declined to sign the True Bill; therefore, the parents were never indicted.  The prosecutor stated that "I and my prosecutorial team believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time."  To read the True Bill, which is only four pages, go here.  To read more about the story go here.

Jurors in Neo-Nazi Trial will be Anonymous

Yesterday, a federal judge ruled that he would use anonymous jurors in the criminal trial of former neo-Nazi activist William A. White.  White is on trial in federal court for sending a threatening communication to his ex-wife in an attempt to extort money.  Previously, in 2011, White was convicted of soliciting violence against a juror in Illinois.  The judge stated that in his 41 years on the bench he had "never empaneled an anonymous jury."  The judge went on to say that he is "reluctantly going to permit it in this case."

To read more about this case go here.

Jurors in Neo-Nazi Trial May be Anonymous

In the criminal trial of former neo-Nazi activist William A. White federal prosecutors are asking the judge to conceal the names of prospective jurors.  Previously, in 2011, White was convicted of soliciting violence against a juror in Illinois.  White is now on trial for sending a threatening communication to his ex-wife in an attempt to extort money.   In arguing for the anonymous jury, prosecutors stated that White "and his associates are capable of harming jurors and are likely to interfere with the judicial process as they have in the past."  White opposes the government's motion for anonymous jury. 

To read more about this case go here.  To  read about prior posts on anonymous juries go here.

Update: Juror Removed for Hand Gesture

I previously blogged about a juror who gave the defendant the middle finger after he allegedly stole the juror's cab in New York City on Tuesday. 

On Wednesday, defense counsel moved to have the juror removed claiming that she is likely to have a grudge against the defendant.  However, the judge refused to do so because he determined after questioning the juror that she could be fair.  Furthermore, the judge found that the juror did not recognize the person who took her cab.  It should be noted that his juror is also an attorney.

On Friday, the court reversed itself and removed the juror.  The court reported that the juror in question read a newspaper article about the incident.  To learn more about this case go here.

Despite Hand Gesture to Defendant, Juror Remains on Trial

Although she gave the defendant the middle finger, a juror in a federal criminal corruption trial involving 3 defendants will remain on the case.  Apparently, the gesture arose after the defendant allegedly stole the juror's cab in New York City on Tuesday. 

On Wednesday, defense counsel moved to have the juror removed claiming that she is likely to have a grudge against the defendant.  However, the judge refused to do so because he determined after questioning the juror that she can be fair and she did not recognize the person who took her cab.  It should be noted that his juror is also an attorney. I am not quite sure why the judge didn't remove this juror just to cut down on the number of appellate issues that may arise if the defendants are convicted.

h/tip ABA Journal

Not Ineffective Assistance for Keeping Juror who is Friends with the Prosecutor

In People v. Eddie Thompson, the Court of Appeals of New York held that it was not ineffective assistance of counsel to keep a juror [William Peters] who was long-time friends with the prosecutor.  In Thompson, the defendant, who was acquitted of second degree murder but convicted of manslaughter in the death of his girlfriend, argued that it was ineffective assistance of counsel for his attorney to fail to exercise a peremptory challenge to remove Peters.  Although defense counsel did ask that the judge challenge Peters for cause, he never used one of his peremptories to strike him.

According to the court,

[i]t could be argued that counsel's decision not to use a peremptory challenge on Peters was a mistake for two reasons: because Peters, as a juror, would be biased in the prosecution's favor; and because, by not using a peremptory challenge to excuse him, counsel failed to preserve for appeal any claim that the court erred in rejecting the for-cause challenge.

The court made quick work of the first argument stating that

[it] is a weak one, because defense counsel may reasonably have thought Peters an acceptable juror from the defense point of view.

In contrast, the second argument merited more discussion.  According to the court,

[c]ounsel's choice not to exercise a peremptory challenge deprived defendant of the opportunity to make that argument on appeal; under CPL 270.20 (2), where a defendant has not exhausted his peremptory challenges, a denial of a challenge for cause "does not constitute reversible error unless the defendant . . . peremptorily challenges such prospective juror."

In affirming the defendant's conviction, the court ultimately concluded that

counsel's mistake, if it was one, was not the sort of "egregious and prejudicial" error that amounts to a deprivation of the constitutional right to counsel

E-Jurors: A View from the Bench

E-Jurors: A View from the Bench (Forthcoming in the Cleveland State Law Review)

By Judge Antoinette Plogstedt

Abstract: Electronic jurors pose new twists to an old problem. With emerging technology in mobile devices, social media, and internet research, juror misconduct exists in new shapes and forms. Many jurisdictions have made attempts to curb electronic misconduct by modifying standard jury instructions and confiscating juror cell phones. Some judges have implemented jury instructions which remind jurors to refrain from communicating about the case and conducting on-line research. However, their efforts fall short. In previous literature, practitioners, students and a few scholars have offered suggestions on modifying jury instructions to better inform jurors of prohibited misconduct. To address the overall electronic juror problem, this Article explains, from a unique judicial vantage point, that the jury system should be improved by better educating judges on emerging technology and social trends; improving jury instructions to specify changing mobile devices, social media sites and internet research with clear reasons for the prohibited conduct; encouraging attorneys to address social media and juror internet use; and engaging active jurors. This Article’s most critical recommendations include encouraging juror questioning of witnesses and adopting the Author’s specific proposed jury instruction, which identifies a detailed and comprehensive list of social media sites and internet search tools, along with compelling reasons for refraining from misconduct.

 

 

Defendant Wants New Trial Because of Blogging Juror who was also an Attorney

While the idea of jurors blogging during trial is troublesome, it is not necessarily a new concept.  Unfortunately, it is becoming an all too common occurrence.  What is new, however, is when that juror also happens to be a licensed attorney.  This was the situation before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last week in Donald McNeely v. Mattew Cate.

In a nutshell, McNeely, who was convicted for burglary and sentenced to 38 years and 8 months because he was a habitual offender, argued that he should be granted a new trial because the foreman on his jury failed to inform the court that he was an attorney and had blogged about the case. 

Initially, the California Supreme Court had vacated the defendant's conviction.  However, on remand it was reinstated. Subsequent to that reinstatement, a federal district court judge denied the defendant's habeas motion which was then appealed to the 9th Circuit. 

It remains to be seen whether or not the defendant will be successful at the 9th Circuit.  Based on the tenor of the questions asked to McNeely's counsel, it did not look promising for the defendant.  To hear the audio of the oral argument go here.

For more background on the case go here.