Iowa Supreme Court Establishes New Jurisprudence for Determining Jury Pool Representativeness
In three separate cases decided last week, the Iowa Supreme Court set forth a new test that trial judges must apply in determining whether the composition of a jury selection pool represents a fair cross-section of the community. In one of the cases, two justices urged the elimination of peremptory challenges.
What to Do with an Apparently Sleeping Juror?
In Commonwealth v. Louf, Louf was convicted of ten of eleven charges at the end of an eight-day trial. On appeal Mr. Louf claimed that the trial judge committed structural error by not interviewing a juror who was reportedly sleeping through parts of the trial. In reviewing his claim, a Massachusetts appellate panel provides readers with valuable analysis how reported conduct should be addressed.
Judge Stuns Observers by Acquitting Defendant After Hung Jury Is Discharged
After a jury deadlocked in the trial of a mother accused of aggravated abuse of her 10-month-old child, Miami-Dade County Judge Mark Blumstein entered a judgment of acquittal. In doing so, he stated, “I'm not surprised about what the jury came to, and someone beyond any human in the court will have to answer those questions. But in light of what I heard, and after hearing the presentation from the state, I don't think it's going to change with any retrial of this case.”
Oklahoma High Court Issues Extraordinary Writ Directing Trial Court to Impanel a Jury for Sentencing
In the case of Jesse Allen Johnson v. The Honorable Ray C. Elliot, Mr. Johnson was sentenced by a judge to life without possibility of parole after he entered a guilty plea as a 17-year-old juvenile. That sentence was later vacated as unconstitutional. At re-sentencing Mr. Johnson was no longer a juvenile and petitioned for a jury to determine his new sentence. Oklahoma is one of five states that requires juries to impose criminal sentences. After the trial judge denied Johnson’s petition, a panel of the Court of Criminal Appeals issued an extraordinary writ directing the trial judge to impanel a jury for sentencing.
Confidential Jury Records Cannot Be Released for Purposes of Impeaching a Witness
As a petitioner in an administrative hearing in New York City, Mr. Kenneth Swezey testified that he lived at a certain address by stating he has been summoned for jury duty at that location. An opponent of Swezey’s application wanted to challenge the testimony by obtaining a New York court’s jury-summoning records. The relevant court jury office refused to release the records. An appellate panel upheld the nondisclosure of the confidential jury records.
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.
