Interesting opinion out of the 11th Circuit as reported by the ABA Journal.
A federal judge didn’t err when he dismissed a juror who declared that the Holy Spirit told him a former congresswoman was innocent in an alleged charity scam, a federal appeals court has ruled in a 2-1 decision.
In a Jan. 9 opinion, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Atlanta upheld the conviction of Corrine Brown, a former Democratic congresswoman from Florida....to continue reading go here.
That is the question many have asked with regards to how jurors treat each other. In one recent federal civil case, Bostick v. State Farm, a juror was dismissed by the trial judge for engaging in the following conduct:
• Confronting a male juror “chest to chest and threatening to punch him out.”
• Remarking that he was “going to hit someone” and goading other jurors to “swing on me.”
• Using the F-word, calling Caucasian jurors “white asses,” and referring to female jurors as “bitches.”
• “[Resting] on the couch during most of their deliberations.”
• Stating that he didn’t want to follow instructions. When he was urged to follow the law he replied, “I don’t care.”
• Interrupting and ignoring jurors and refusing to deliberate.
• Frightening jurors and causing two female jurors to cry.
The 11th Circuit in an 11-page opinion affirmed the dismissal finding that jurors have been removed for far less egregious conduct.
Yesterday, I went on NPR's Press Play, hosted by Madeleine Brand, to discuss jurors, El Chapo, and social media. I was on the air with Keegan Hamilton of VICE News. He was the reporter who originally broke the story about juror misconduct in El Chapo's trial. The interview lasts approximately 10 minutes and is available here.
According to a recent article in VICE, the jurors in the El Chapo trial allegedly followed the case in the media and shared their views with others about the trial. If true, this is definitely juror misconduct. However, it remains to be seen whether the misconduct, even if true, would be sufficient to overturn El Chapo's guilty verdict. The standard to do so is very high.
I do believe that the use of anonymous juries, such as in the case of El Chapo, increases the likelihood of juror misconduct for two reasons. First, it is harder for attorneys and the media to research/investigate jurors when they are anonymous. Second, jurors are more likely to flaunt the rules when they know it will be difficult to monitor or follow their conduct.
Dr. Ken Broda-Bahn has written an excellent review of a recent article I wrote (Social Media, the Internet, and Trial by Jury) about the current state of research on jurors and the Internet. In his review, Dr. Broda-Bahn notes the challenges of determining the pervasiveness of online juror misconduct stating that estimates "need to be taken with a grain of salt because the same social desirability bias that limits the reliability of answers in voir dire also limits ability to collect data on this question of whether jurors are violating the rules." To read his review in entirety go here.
This paper is about the steps that may be taken to dilute but not totally eliminate the prejudicial effect of on-line material that relates to a defendant about to stand trial. It is posited upon the fact that jurors, despite strong judicial directions, will go on-line to seek out information relevant to the case that they are trying. The solution lies in the use of what could be described as “take-down” orders whereby material is removed from websites during the course of the trial to eliminate or dilute any prejudice that may otherwise arise, along with de-indexing the reference in search engines. The remedy of a “take-down” order restores the qualities of practical and partial obscurity of prejudicial information that was a characteristic of the pre-Digital Paradigm. The paper also discusses the issue of juror contempt in light of proposed changes to the law in the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt) Bill.
The NY Daily News has an interesting story about a romance in the courtroom involving a cooperating witness and a juror. It remains to be seen whether or not this short-lived love affair will be enough to overturn the defendant's conviction of conspiracy, attempted murder, assault, and weapons possession.
nydailynews.com: Juror's courtroom romance with cooperating witness threatened gang member's 2017 conviction
In State v. Khalid Mohammed, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of a defendant despite the fact that a juror apparently dozed during the pre-trial instructions, which apparently were inconsequential. While this case does not break any new ground, it does provide lower courts some guidance, excerpted below, on what to do when they come across an inattentive juror.
When it is alleged that a juror was inattentive during a consequential part of the trial, if the trial court concludes, based upon personal observations explained adequately on the record, that the juror was alert, the inquiry ends. If the judge did not observe the juror’s attentiveness, the judge must conduct individual voir dire of the juror; if that voir dire leads to any conclusion other than that the juror was attentive and alert, the judge must take appropriate corrective action.
To read the opinion in full go here.