On the Tenth Day of Deliberations, Three Jurors Dismissed for Misconduct, Contempt Charges Next?
After weeks of testimony followed by ten days of deliberations in a homicide case in Alameda County, California, three jurors were dismissed, and former alternates recalled to restart deliberations from scratch after Labor Day. The trial judge has not yet sanctioned any jurors and, as the San Francisco Chronicle reports, no one knows yet what the apparent misconduct was.
Split Jury Vote System Rooted in 1930s Oregon Nativism
Andrea Armstrong, a law professor at Loyola University in New Orleans, writes in The Corvallis Advocate that the Oregon constitutional convention “put into place a number of measures in order ‘to maintain the supremacy of the white race.’”
When a Potential Juror Gives Many Contradictory Answers to Voir Dire Questions – Which Ones Are Reliable and Honest?
During jury selection in State v. Anderson, a potential juror during a recess told a court bailiff he was “pretty sure the defendant is guilty.” After this was reported to the court, the judge and trial counsel conducted an extensive voir dire of the juror. Thereafter, the defense motion to strike for cause was denied. The Montana Supreme Court reversed a conviction, concluding that a venire member’s multiple, spontaneous answers to previous questions were “most likely to be reliable and honest” indicators of his state of mind. The case demonstrates the limits of rehabilitative voir dire questioning.
Judge’s Withholding of a Jury Note to Trial Counsel Constitutes Reversible Error
After a deliberating juror in Washington, D.C. wrote a note to the judge saying, “Because I take Jury Duties (sic) so serious, I seem to be one of three stand outs. I don’t see how I can have a change of heart because the only information I have to rely on is my notes and the testimonies.” After reading only the first sentence of the note, the judge gave the note to another judge for review and refused to share it with trial counsel because it disclosed the vote count of the jury. The jury eventually convicted the defendant. Upon review, the D.C. Court of Appeals found the judge’s actions in relation to trial counsel amounted to constitutional error by impairing defense counsel’s ability to respond to the full jury note and argue for an appropriate instruction to the jury.
Canadian Provinces Stand Out in Their Treatment of Jurors
The NCSC Center for Jury Studies was contacted recently by a court administrator in the Midwest, who reported an increase in incidents with “belligerent jurors” who arrive at the courthouse spoiling for a fight court staff in the jury assembly room and in the courtroom. The administrator also reported an increase in jurors wearing neo-Nazi and white supremacist clothing and accessories to court. The Center for Jury Studies staff wonders whether other courts have experienced similar trends with jurors or other court users. Please contact Paula Hannaford-Agor at phannaford@ncsc.orgto share your experiences and how your court responded.
We Want to Know About Jury Innovators
NCSC is accepting nominations for the G. Thomas Munsterman Award for Jury Innovation, which recognizes states, local courts, or individuals who have made significant improvements or innovations in jury procedures, operations, or practices. If you know a group or individual who deserves to be nominated, contact Greg Mize. Be sure to complete and include this form with your nomination.
