
Can Physically Restraining a Defendant Affect the Jury’s Decision?
In the U.S., most jurisdictions go to great lengths to mask the fact a defendant may be in custody from the jury. However, that is not the case in many countries that do criminal jury trials. Defendants may be required to sit in a “dock,” an area that may be enclosed by glass or metal. Although this approach minimizes security concerns, recent research by Meredith Rossner, et. al. suggests that jurors are subconsciously influenced by this social cue of dangerousness, and this has an impact on verdicts. Sociology Lens published a story on October 23, 2017, titled The Dock on Trial: Courtroom Design and the Presumption of Innocence which describes the results of the research.
Cloud Based Jury Management Systems
A jury manager and regular reader of the Jur-E Bulletin would like to speak to jury managers that use cloud based jury management systems. Specifically, he would like to discuss any security issues and how those issues are managed. Additionally, he is interested in continuity of operations issues and any backup systems should there be an internet outage. If you have appropriate information and would be willing to speak to this person, please send an email to Greg Hurley at ghurley@ncsc.org. Your email will be forwarded.
The Status of Jury Trials in Russia
Retired Russian Judge Sergei Pashin who played a major role in the introduction of trial by jury in Russia in the 1990s, wrote a piece for Izvestiya on October 12, 2017. An excerpt of it is available in English online. His evaluation of the current use of jury trials in the country is not positive. For example, he states:
Sadly, reforms traditionally go hand to hand with counter-reforms in Russia. The fate of jury trials depends on ill-disposed officials who have lost their understanding of this institution. Having received instructions from the president to expand the institution of jury trials, they have already tried to carry out a silent constitutional coup by abolishing it: they planned to replace jury trials where ordinary people independently make a decision with a court where they confer under the guidance of judges – as in Ukraine and Germany. In the heat of the moment, the right to trial by jury has been taken away from women and elderly men.
Impeachment of a Verdict Based on a Juror’s Unwillingness to Deliberate
The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five rendered an opinion in Cornavaca v. Horwedel on October 24, 2017. Mr. Horwedel was driving when he stuck and killed Mr. Cornavaca. This is a civil case and the cause of action is wrongful death. The jury reached a verdict for the defendant which would have gone the other way had one juror voted differently.
The testimony indicated that the decedent had alcohol and marijuana in his system. Following a verdict, the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial which contained an affidavit from Juror Maccarone. Maccarone claimed the following:
“Juror . . . Goldarreh stated that as soon as she heard evidence that alcohol and marijuana were found in the Decedent’s system she made up her mind that she would not award anything to the Plaintiffs. [Juror] Goldarreh did not participate in deliberations and simply stated that she would vote for whatever gave the Plaintiffs zero recovery.”
The appeals court first had to determine whether the statements made by Juror Maccarone were admissible and they determined that pursuant to the California Evidence Code they were admissible. (Most states utilize a rule of evidence patterned after Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) that would have prohibited Juror Maccarone from providing evidence to impeach the verdict in this situation.) The appeals court next had to determine if Juror Goldarreh’s failure to engage in deliberations was juror misconduct. They found that the statement made by Juror Galdarreh amounted to a prima facie showing that she had bias against the plaintiff/decedent and her action of refusing to deliberate confirmed that she was in fact biased. They therefor found that Juror Galdarreh had committed misconduct. They determined that there was a reasonable probability that the juror misconduct impacted the verdict because if one vote had gone the other direction, the verdict would have been for the plaintiff. Therefore, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five reversed the case and remanded it for a new trial.
This case is interesting because it depicts a different approach to balancing the societal need for finality in jury verdicts against the need for courts to ensure fundamentally fair outcomes.
Jury Improvement Lunches
Over the next two months the Civil Jury Project at NYU School of Law plans to hold a number of “Jury Improvement Lunches” around the country. The purpose of these lunches is to thank jurors for their service and to learn from them how we can improve jury trials. Lawyers, judges and jurors will be at each of the lunch tables to provoke discussion, and the most articulate jurors will be asked to participate on a panel discussion at the end of the lunch. Videos of past lunches are available online, such as one from Dallas last year: http://civiljuryproject.law.nyu.edu/dallas-jury-improvement-lunch/.
All lunches will start promptly at 12:00 and end by 1:30pm. Upcoming lunches include:
10/25 Boston, MA: Boston Bar Association on 16 Beacon Street, Boston MA 02018
11/1 Kansas City, MI: Charles Evans Whittaker Courthouse, 400 9th Street, Kansas City, MO 64106
11/2 Denver, CO: Ritz-Carlton, 1881 Curtis Street, Denver, CO 80202
11/9 Baltimore, MD: Hotel Indigo Baltimore Downtown, 24 W Franklin St, Baltimore, MD 21201
11/16 Cleveland, OH: Hilton Cleveland Downtown, 100 Lakeside Ave E, Cleveland, OH 44114
11/20 Oklahoma City, OK:Sheraton Oklahoma City Downtown, 1 N Broadway Ave, Oklahoma City, OK 73102
1/16 New York, NY: New York University School of Law, 40 Washington Square S, New York, NY 10012
For more informatioin, contact Richard Jolly at rljolly@nyu.edu .