Internet Research on Jurors Not Permitted
The Herald Mail reported on September 17, 2018that Washington County (MD) Circuit Judge Mark K. Boyer denied a request by defense attorney Andrew Jezic to do internet research on jurors. Mr. Jezic is representing a criminal defendant charged with murder. Jurors in that jurisdiction are identified only by number. Mr. Jezic argued that other Maryland judges had authorized him to conduct internet research on jurors and that said research could be done without the jurors realizing it was happening. The prosecution objected to Mr. Jezic’s request and Judge Boyer denied it.
Are Jurors Eligible for Worker’s Compensation?
Corey Baron, a J.D. Candidate at St. John’s University School of Law published a very unique article in June of 2018 titled Twelve Injured Men: Why Injured Jurors Should Not Receive Workers' Compensation Coverage From the Courts. The article covers a topic that is very rarely addressed in the literature but does get litigated occasionally. As to whether jurors are eligible for worker’s compensation, it depends on the jurisdiction. He notes the following:
Though one state, Puerto Rico, and the federal government specifically addressed this issue in their statutes, claimants in states without such express statutory provisions had to litigate the issue. Consequently, this body of case law has yielded four different holdings: (1) jurors are eligible for coverage because of how the statutes have been interpreted, (2) public policy requires jurors’ eligibility, (3) jurors are not eligible for coverage because of how the statutes have been interpreted, and (4) public policy precludes jurors’ eligibility.
An Alternate Present During Deliberations
The Colorado Supreme Court issued two opinions on September 17, 2018 that both address the same issue but in different case types. In James v. People, Mr. James was tried and convicted for possession of methamphetamine. An alternate juror was not released prior to jury deliberations and participated for approximately 10 minutes in deliberations. Once the trial judge became aware of the issue, the alternate was released, the jury was instructed “to continue on with deliberations uninfluenced by anything the alternate may have said or done” and a defense motion for a mistrial was denied. On appeal, the state intermediate court of appeals concluded that the trial court’s error in allowing the alternate juror to retire with the jury and the juror’s presence for part of the deliberations were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and after rejecting James’s other assignments of error, affirmed his conviction. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed and affirmed the conviction.
In a personal injury case styled as Johnson v. Schonlaw, the trial judge allowed an alternate juror to deliberate over the objection of counsel. The intermediate court of appeals concluded that the trial court had erred in allowing an alternate juror to participate in jury deliberations over the objection of a party, and that the error gave rise to a presumption of prejudice, which remained unrebutted by the other party, and therefore required reversal. The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed with the lower appeal court and affirmed the ruling of the trial court.
Blind Juror
The Daily Local News published a story on September 1, 2018 about a blind juror who served on a Chester County (PA) Common Pleas Court jury that heard a DUI trial. The criminal defense attorney handling the case, Joseph P. Green, Jr. stated that in his 38 years of experience that he was not aware of another case in which a blind juror had served. Gary Wunder, the editor of the Baltimore, Md., based Braille Monitor, a monthly magazine published by the National Federation of the Blind stated “We have long contended that blind people should be allowed to serve on juries…” The NCSC recently published a booklet titled Jurors with Disabilities that described the law and provides practical information about this issue. The Chester County Common Pleas Court and the parties in this case deserve some recognition for making the appropriate accommodations for the blind juror and considering the blind jurors abilities before exercising their use of peremptory challenges.
Comments