
People v. Keith Eric Wood
The State of Michigan Court of Appeals issued an opinion in People v. Keith Eric Wood on December 11, 2018. Mr. Wood was charged and convicted of jury tampering as a result of handing out Fully Informed Jury Association pamphlets titled Your Jury rights: True or False. The pamphlets contain information on jury nullification. Factually, the evidence indicated that Mr. Wood happened to watch a pretrial hearing involving a defendant charged with illegal draining of a wetland because he was generally interested in the case. He didn’t know the defendant. That night he found the pamphlets online and decided to hand them to people outside the courthouse the following morning while prospective jurors appeared for the above noted environmental case. There was divergent testimony as to whether the pamphlets were being generally handed out to members of the public or whether he was specifically targeting jurors. Two jurors that heard the environmental case testified that the defendant approached them, asked if they were at the courthouse for jury service and handed them the pamphlets.
Prior to trial, the defendant argued that his actions were protected by the First Amendment. He likewise argued this point on appeal to the circuit court. Both lower courts rejected his arguments. The State of Michigan Court of Appeals considered this issue again. It determined that prospective jurors are “jurors” within the meaning of Michigan’s jury tampering statute. The appeals court stated:
Applying strict scrutiny, we hold that application of the statute to defendant’s conduct was a narrowly tailored means of furthering the state’s compelling interest in preserving the impartiality and integrity of jurors. Defendant concedes that the government has a compelling interest in preventing jury tampering, but states he “does not concede . . . that the State has a compelling interest to criminalize [his] distribution of a juror rights pamphlet on a public sidewalk.” Yet this argument is based on the premise, rejected outright by the jury, that defendant only intended to educate the general public with his pamphlet. The jury, in fact, determined the opposite, as it found that defendant distributed the pamphlets in an attempt to willfully influence the decision of jurors in a particular case. We cannot overemphasize the importance of the jury’s finding that defendant intended to influence two jurors summoned for Yoder’s case [the environmental case]. It is that specific level of intent that takes defendant’s case out of the general pamphletting activities protected by the First Amendment.
The State of Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. However, the holding in this case is very important because it specifically differentiates situations in which nullification pamphlets may be passed out to a broad range of people appearing at the courthouse and not just prospective jurors appearing for a specific case.
Victorian Juries Commissioner to Examine Juror Support

(Paul Dore, Juries Commissioner of Victoria, Australia)
“Members of the community take on the weighty work of jurors. They’re not lawyers. Consequently, jurors may have little appreciation of the legal system and court procedures and its impact on them,” said Paul Dore in his acceptance speech at the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust (Australia) Awards Dinner, held in November 2018.
Paul Dore is the Juries Commissioner of Victoria, Australia, and one of only 21 Victorians to receive a 2018 Churchill Fellowship. Fellowships are awarded to experts across a range of fields who are passionate about challenging the status quo to create or make a positive impact on Australia’s society. This year, 112 Australians were awarded Fellowships worth over $3.1 million.
Paul’s project aims to develop a systemic approach to juror support programs in Australia.
“My interest lies in the juror experience, formed by a combination of the disruption to daily routine, the serious nature of jury trials, the formality and foreign surroundings of court proceedings, and the often horrific evidence presented in criminal trials,” says Paul.
Paul will travel to the UK, the USA and Canada to access jury systems currently reviewing, or who have recently reviewed, their engagement with citizens through juror support programs and other channels.
Through immersion, observation and interviews with key players: judiciary and court administrators, key legislators and policy advisers, academics, and jurors, he will explore the impact of jury service on citizens taking up their civic duty and the role jury administrators play in supporting them to do so.
“Some international jurisdictions have recently looked at both the fundamental need for counselling and mental health support programs for jurors and the practicalities of implementing such programs. Their thinking is contemporary, fresh and even raw.”
Paul intends the findings of the project will generate debate and policy development in all Australian jurisdictions, which may in turn lead to uniform standards and expectations across Australia.
“While there are some support systems in place for jurors, there is scope for improvement. The project will help to develop a more nuanced approach to supporting jurors and, given the centrality of the jury to our system, is very worthwhile,” said Chief Justice Ferguson of the Supreme Court of Victoria. “The project is very exciting … It will draw on experience elsewhere in the world (not available in Australia) to better support jurors (particularly from a mental health perspective) to perform their important work.”
The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust (Australia) was established in 1965 to honor the memory of Sir Winston Churchill, and fulfill his wish for people from all walks of life to travel the world to gain new knowledge and share ideas and insights.
If you would like further information, email Paul Dore, Juries Commissioner, Juries Victoria at paul.dore@juries.vic.gov.au
DC Jury Procedure Challenged
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals rendered an opinion in Coley v. U.S. on November 15, 2018. Mr. Coley was tried and convicted of a number of violent firearms offenses following a jury trial. When the jury was polled following the verdict being published in open court, Juror 668 stated “I can’t agree” with the verdict. The trial judge immediately sent the jury back out to further deliberate. They were instructed again to not reveal the numerical division of the jury.
After approximately 25 minutes, the jury sent a note out for the judge. Following an internal rule that required another judge to review any jury notes that may identify the numerical division of a jury, the clerk took the note to another judge. That judge reviewed the note and indicated that the trial judge should not see if because it did identify or suggest the numerical division of the jury. The trial judge did not permit the parties to see the note either. Rather, the trial judge called the jury back into the courtroom, explained why he had not reviewed the note and instructed the jury to continue deliberating. After the defendant was convicted on all charges, the parties and the trial judge saw the note. It was from Juror 668 and stated, “I don’t feel he did it.” The defense counsel made all of the appropriate motions to preserve this issue for appeal.
The Court of Appeals considered two tightly related issues:
First, by withholding the juror’s note from the parties and affording them no opportunity to be heard by the judge who read and evaluated the note and advised how to respond, the procedure denied appellant his right to be present at a critical stage of his trial and impaired his ability to argue effectively for a proper response.
Second, by keeping both judges ignorant of material information, the procedure prevented either judge from appreciating the substantial risk of juror coercion and taking the steps necessary to alleviate that risk.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals noted that the purpose of shielding the trial judge from knowing the numerical division of the jury is to try to prevent any appearance that the trial judge suggesting that a lone holdout conform to the will of the majority. In this case, because Juror 668 was the third juror to be polled (9 jurors had not been polled), Juror 668 could not have gotten the impression that the trial judge “wanted her to change her vote.” However, when she sent out a second note that the trial judge did not review, told the jury he didn’t review it and failed to instruct the jury that they should refrain from giving up sincere views of the case just to reach unanimous verdicts, the trial judge may have unintentionally coerced guilty votes from Juror 668. The Court of Appeals determined that there was a substantial risk of juror coercion and reversed/remanded the case. They found that the parties should have had the opportunity to see the note and make any motions they deemed appropriate before the second judge, which caused the second judge to make a decision without all the facts. However, the Court of Appeals seemed to suggest that the procedure employed here of having a second judge evaluate juror notes that state or suggest numerical divisions to be conceptually sound. This case was an anomaly due to the second note.
Judicial Branch Launches Simplified and More Convenient Juror Notification
(The following press release was issued on December 3, 2018)
The Iowa Judicial Branch has launched a new juror notification process. Beginning today, prospective jurors in Iowa will no longer receive a paper juror questionnaire in the mail with a summons to report for jury duty. Instead, prospective jurors will receive a post card with information on how to complete the questionnaire online.
Each postcard will be specific to the county of residence and include the website address for the online questionnaire, the address of the courthouse with a small map, a juror number, the service start date, the term of service, and the juror badge.
The updated online questionnaire, eJuror, will include a section for jurors to enter a cell phone number or email address for notification by text message or email three days prior to the jury service start date and again 24 hours prior to the start date. A prospective juror may also reschedule his or her service date online, one time.
“This will simplify the process and make it more convenient for citizens summoned for jury service," State Court Administrator Todd Nuccio said. "We anticipate a better response rate because people can easily complete the juror questionnaire on their phones or at their home computer 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. We plan to look at the utilization rate after the launch to see if the new process has improved the response."
Along with the new juror notification process, the Iowa Judicial Branch added a new jury service page to its website at https://www.iowacourts.gov/iowa-courts/jury-service/ . The page includes a link to the online juror questionnaire along with an overview of jury service, answers to frequently asked questions, directions on how to complete the online questionnaire, what to expect during a trial, a link to a short video on the history of jury service, and information on how to identify and avoid jury scams.
A portion of the frequently asked questions section explains how citizens are selected for jury service and includes a link to the master list of names in the jury pool. The judicial branch compiles lists of licensed drivers, state identification card holders, and registered voters residing in each county to create the Master Jury List. The Master Jury List is online at https://data.iowa.gov/Government/Master-Jury-List/cajy-5hfr .
The judicial branch website also has individual pages with juror information for each county. The county specific pages include contact information, what to wear to court, where to park, and jury check-in information. A link to the pages is at https://www.iowacourts.gov/court-directory/ .
The new process results from recommendations in the March 2018 Iowa Supreme Court Committee on Jury Selection report (https://www.iowacourts.gov/collections/41/files/499/embedDocument/ ). The Committee on Jury Selection recommended that “The Office of the State Court Administrator should (1) develop a new process for notifying jurors of their duty to serve, and (2) create a jury portal on the website, which should include an e-juror questionnaire and information about jury duty.”