First presented in 2008, the award was established to recognize states, local courts, individuals, or other organizations that have made significant improvements or innovations in jury procedures, operations, or practices in one of the following categories:
• state or local statutes, rules, or other formal changes • jury management or technology • in-court improvements • other improvements or innovations
The award is named for G. Thomas Munsterman, founder and former director of the Center for Jury Studies and an internationally renowned innovator in jury systems and research.
Nominations are due August 30, 2019, and can be sent by email to Greg Mize at gmize@ncsc.org. Please download, complete and submit this form with your nomination.
The Latest Issue of the Judicial Conduct Reporter Devoted to Judicial Ethics and Jurors
The spring issue reports on judicial ethics rulings related to discourteous treatment of jurors, deliberating juries, criticism and praise of verdicts, post-verdict meetings, letters of appreciation, and more.
Facebook Posting (About Potential City Riot When Verdict Is Rendered) Reached a Deliberating Jury — Not Enough to Overturn Guilty Verdict
In State v. Christensen, the Iowa Supreme Court opined, “Every reasonable juror knows that a wide variety of vacuous claims and statements may appear on social media without the slightest veracity. In addition, there was no objective support for the threat of a riot in the record except the vague hearsay report of a Facebook comment."
Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia Provides a Model Public Education Video Regarding Juries and Jury Service
The Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, recently released the sixth episode of its podcast, Gertie's Law, titled “Twelve Ordinary Men and Women.” As the title suggests, this podcast, which runs for 45 minutes, explores how the Victorian jury system works, as well as some of the challenges jurors and courts face, such as social media, rational vs. emotional deliberations, and comprehending complex evidence.
The podcast includes interviews with judges of both the Supreme and County Courts, as well as academics, lawyers, and the Juries Commissioner, Paul Dore. It is an interesting and entertaining exploration of the inner workings of the jury system, with insightful contributions from those interviewed.
The Gertie's Law podcast takes a deep dive into some of the lesser-known, misunderstood, or complex parts of the courts' work. It aims to provide listeners with a better, more informed understanding of various aspects of the justice system, as well as to facilitate greater engagement between the courts and the public. The podcast, including the episode on juries, can be found here, or where you get your podcasts. If any reader would like more information on the juries episode or the podcast in general, they can contact Cameron Ballinger on cameron.ballinger@juries.vic.gov.au.
Are Peremptory Strikes Like Democratic Election Votes?
“Yes” says Ela A. Leshem, a rising 3L student at the Yale Law School. In the latest issue of the Yale Law Journal, Ms. Leshem argues that the exercise of peremptories is analogous to voting for legislators. Whereas strikes for cause are tools to ensure an impartial jury panel, the author asserts that the peremptory challenge procedure supports the democratic value of a jury being indirectly chosen by the parties.
Fact Can Be Stranger Than Fiction — Defendant Seeks to Have His Identity Concealed During Jury Trial
Perhaps by overlooking the purposes of voir dire procedures, the defendant in People v. Govan asked the judge to conceal his identity during the trial! The New York trial judge would have none of that.
Notice of new or upcoming articles, projects, symposia, and other jury-related events is appreciated. We strive to have to keep the "Upcoming Events" section relevant and up to date. When alerting us to articles published elsewhere on the Web, please include the URL. We cannot reprint articles from other sources without permission, and generally only provide a link.
Disclaimer: Opinions contained herein, as well as material appearing in external sites to which this publication provides links, do not necessarily reflect those of the National Center for State Courts. Presence of any such material should not be construed as support by the National Center for State Courts or any of its associations, affiliates, or employees.
Broken Links: Although the Editor makes an effort to ensure that links included in the newsletter are active at the time it is sent, there will be instances when readers find that links are broken or un-viewable for other reasons. Unfortunately, this will happen occasionally.
NCSC maintains exclusive use of its subscriber lists. Information contained therein will only be used by NCSC and is never distributed to other organizations. All communications from NCSC contain an opt-out provision for your convenience.
