Juries

Voltaire's Jury Selection Software Program and Big Data

Read about the latest software program created to help attorneys learn more about jurors.

Voltaire’s software can search through billions of data points, including public records and social media posts, and—within a matter of minutes—pull up all kinds of information on prospective jurors. The software, which is powered by IBM Watson, also uses deep psycholinguistic and behavioral analysis to discover the biases and views of prospective jurors and to deliver real-time predictions on how they might vote...

ABAJournal.com: Software provides real-time predictions on how potential jurors might vote

Alternative Juror's Participation in Deliberations Leads to a New Trial in Manslaughter Convictions

The Indiana Supreme Court in Wall v. Indiana has granted a husband and wife, who were both convicted of manslaughter, new trials because an alternate juror participated in deliberations. Apparently, this juror not only participated but also became very involved in the deliberations.  According to the state high court,

[e]ven after being informed by other jurors not to participate in the deliberations, the alternate juror

manipulated physical evidence (the working parts of a baby gate) and repeatedly replayed a portion of the DVD that was in evidence, with ever-increasing volume, until all jurors were giving it their attention

 

Interestingly, not every member of the Indiana Supreme Court thought that the defendants should automatically receive a new trial.  At least one dissenting justice argued that the case should be remanded so that the trial judge can poll the jurors to determine the impact of the alternate juror’s misconduct on their respective impartiality.

 

Challenging Jury Selection Practices in the 9th Circuit (U.S. v. Hernandez)

In U.S. v. Hernandez a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed an illegal reentry conviction in which the defendant argued that in compiling its 2009 master jury wheel, the Southern District of California violated the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 and the Constitution.

Applying the absolute disparity rule, the panel held that because a juror source list consisting only of registered voters did not substantially underrepresent African–Americans or Hispanics in the community, the Southern District's failure to supplement that list did not violate the Sixth Amendment. The panel also held that because the defendant neither alleged nor showed discriminatory intent, there was no Fifth Amendment equal-protection violation.

The panel wrote that the Southern District Clerk's Office should not automatically disqualify individuals who express doubt about their English skills, and should not put off preparing statistical jury-representativeness forms required by the Act, but that these technical violations did not frustrate the Act's goals and do not warrant merits relief in this case.

The panel held that the Southern District's dismissal of prospective jurors based solely on a “no” answer to a question whether jurors “read, write, speak and understand the English language” was not a substantial violation of the Act because it did not interfere with the Act's key goals of randomness and objectivity. The panel also held that the defendant did not demonstrate that the Southern District substantially departed from the requirements of the Act by failing to return questionnaires to prospective jurors who failed to answer questions on race and/or ethnicity.

The panel cautioned the Southern District to take note of the statutory violations identified and amend its practices in the future.

Jury Representativeness

Noted jury expert professor Valerie Hans has recently written a thought provoking piece entitled Jury Representativeness: It's No Joke in the State of New York. The piece examines two New York studies that analyzed jury representation in the state.  While the studies did not reveal any glaring discrepancies between census data and who actually sat on juries, they did show that certain minorities are underrepresented  in the jury pool.  Professor Hans goes on to discuss potential solutions to this inequity e.g., she suggests possibly applying social science techniques to jury selection. 

It would be interesting to hear from others who have ideas on how to make the jury more representative.

 

WA SCT Says Jury Selection by Email Violates Defendant's Rights

Interesting opinion (State v. Irby) out of Washington state that emphasizes the importance of the defendant's presence during jury selection.

KIROTV:  High Court Upholds Reversal of Murder Conviction Based on E-mail

The Washington state Supreme Court has upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a murder conviction based on an improper e-mail procedure during the trial.

An appeals court had ruled that the defendant, Terrance Irby, was denied his "right to be present at all critical stages of a trial" when a judge sent an e-mail to attorneys on both sides regarding jurors he thought should be removed from the jury pool.The Washington state Supreme Court has upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a murder conviction based on an improper e-mail procedure during the trial...to continue reading go here.

Jury Selection Starts Today in the Blago Corruption Trial

18 months after being arrested on corruption charges, former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich goes to trial today in federal court in Chicago. As regular readers of this blog know, the trial judge has ordered that the jurors in this case remain anonymous.  For those interested in regular updates on jury selection or other aspects of the trial, I recommend reading the Blago Blog.