Does Pamphleteering About Jury Nullification on Courthouse Steps = Jury Tampering?

No, says the Colorado Supreme Court in State v. Iannicelli. In that case, two pamphleteers stood on the steps of a Denver courthouse asking passersby whether they were reporting for jury duty. They gave affirmative responders a brochure discussing jury nullification. The state charged the duo with jury tampering. The high court threw out the charges saying, “[T]he statute requires that a defendant’s effort to influence a juror must be directed to a specifically identifiable case.”

In Praise of Jury Nullification

In a less litigious setting, former Washington State supreme court justice William Goodloe was a keynote speaker on Constitution Day last month. His speech was titled “Jury Nullification: Empowering the Jury as the Fourth Branch of Government.”

Louisiana Considering Adjustments to Jury Trials in Auto Accident Cases

The Omnibus Premium Reduction Act of 2019 would reduce the threshold for a jury trial in auto cases from $50,000 to $5,000, extend the statute of limitations from one year to two, and require any damage award amount be offset by the amount of any payments made to a plaintiff from collateral sources such as medical insurance.

Federal Circuit Undertakes Analysis of the Representativeness of Pennsylvania Jury

In Howell v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, a jury convicted defendant Joseph Howell of felony murder. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Howell later raised a habeas corpus challenge to the jury selection procedures used by the Allegheny County trial court. Upon review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit applied the SCOTUS three-part test in Duren v. Missouri. The appellate court concluded that there was no “systematic exclusion” of black citizens and Howell’s statistical calculations for representativeness of the county’s jury pool were deficient. The detailed opinion is a tutorial on how to calculate racial disparities under Duren.

Occupational Hazard for Judges: Speedy Trial Management vs. Careful Assessment of New Developments

The Indiana Supreme Court found reversible error when a trial judge in a driving-while-intoxicated case did not conduct a hearing on a juror’s note indicating her family member was killed by a drunk truck driver. The note surfaced after voir dire was completed but before the petit jury was sworn in. The high court noted, “Deciding issues of great importance under time constraints is but one burden borne by our trial courts. However, every case is important to the parties involved and adequate time must be allocated to fairly resolve any meritorious issues presented. . . . Further, given the subjective nature of the information conveyed and concerns about the passage of time and potential juror harassment, we cannot say that remand for a hearing will ensure the fairness of the proceedings below.”