Ongoing Battle Regarding Jury Nullification Communication near Denver Courthouse
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction on April 8, 2017 in Verlo v. The City and County of Denver. It was based on an interlocutory appeal challenging a U.S. District Court’s granting of a preliminary injunction, enjoining in part the enforcement of an administrative order issued by Defendant-Appellant Judge Michael Martinez, acting in his official capacity as Chief Judge of the Second Judicial District of Colorado. The order prohibits all expressive activities within an area immediately surrounding the Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse in Denver. Plaintiffs-Appellees Eric Verlo, Janet Matzen, and the Fully Informed Jury Association sought the preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the order against their expressive activities concerning jury nullification. Following an evidentiary hearing, the U.S. District Court enjoined enforcement of a portion of the order as against Plaintiffs. The Judicial District appealed. Based on the arguments made and evidence presented at the preliminary injunction hearing, the Tenth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Plaintiffs’ motion in part. Although the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order granting a limited preliminary injunction, it expressed no opinion as to whether a permanent injunction should issue.
Jurors Provide Advice
WKYT TV reported on May 19, 2017 that several jurors who were on a jury that acquitted a Tulsa, Oklahoma police officer of crimes related to a police involved shooting had some advice for the officer’s department. They don’t think the officer should return to road patrol. However, they thought the officer could work a desk job or perhaps be another type of emergency responder. Their recommendation was provided to a reporter and not the court.
Juror Misconduct by Texting
Christopher A. Powers, a J.D. candidate at the Syracuse University College of Law published an article recently in the Syracuse Law Review titled, Textual Misconduct: What Juror Texting Means for the Courts. The article highlights the People v. Neulander, a case in which a murder conviction was overturned because a juror sent 7,000 text message during a 3-week trial, some of them case related. The author makes the following argument:
Texting presents a unique problem for courts. Like other forms of communication, texting allows instant access to a variety of influencers from a wide range of geographic places and of various relationships to the juror. Unlike some of the other media, texting is a private communication method that is harder to monitor; is more likely to be with a trusted, influential outside source, thus increasing the risk of prejudice; and can be done more discreetly without others finding out.
The author also notes that younger members of society are more likely to be “texting prolific” and texting misconduct by jurors will become an increasingly more common problem.
Juror Fired While Serving
Fox 13 TV reported on May 19, 2017 that juror Michael Mixon was fired from a job as a welder while serving on a criminal trial in Polk County, FL. Mr. Mixon was hired 6 months ago on a construction site and was told his job would be ongoing until construction was complete. The firing was reported to Polk County Chief Judge Don Jacobsen and is now being investigated by the State Attorney’s Office.
Michael Savage Pontificates on Juries
On May 8, 2017 an audio clip of popular radio host Michael Savage was posted on Youtube in which he describes his view of jury service. Most Jur-E Bulletin readers will find this clip to be offensive. However, it is being posted to demonstrate the messaging that some Americans have heard regarding jury service and may be influenced by, and the need for postive messaging to also be available.
Comments