Alaska Court of Appeals reverses riot and criminal mischief convictions due to jury instruction errors
In a consolidated appeal, the Alaska Court of Appeals reversed the riot and criminal mischief convictions of three inmates involved in a 2017 disturbance at the Fairbanks Correctional Center. The court found that flawed jury instructions misrepresented key elements of Alaska’s riot statute.
Specifically, the court ruled that the jury was incorrectly instructed that defendants could be found guilty of riot merely if they were reckless as to whether others were engaging in tumultuous and violent conduct. In contrast, the court held that the statute requires proof that the defendant mutually agreed with at least five others to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct toward a shared objective, consistent with common-law principles of riot requiring coordinated group action, not merely parallel acts.
The court also found reversible error in the jury instructions related to third-degree criminal mischief charges. Jurors were improperly told they could infer intent to cause property damage based solely on whether damage was a natural and probable consequence of the defendants' refusal to leave the wing, conflating negligence with the specific intent required by statute. Additionally, the court noted that jurors were not properly instructed on the need for proximate causation between the defendants' actions and the property damage caused either by other inmates or law enforcement officers.
New Mexico Supreme Court issues stay to protect juror privacy and integrity in Lunsford case.
The Las Cruses Sun Times reports, the New Mexico Supreme Court issued a stay halting district court proceedings in the case of former Las Cruces police officer Brad Lunsford, while it considers whether defense efforts to compel juror testimony pose risks to juror safety and the judicial process. The defense has sought to question a Doña Ana County juror over alleged bias, part of a broader appeal seeking a new trial.
The New Mexico Department of Justice opposed the move, arguing that forcing jurors to testify about deliberations undermines their constitutional protections and invites harassment, especially in politically sensitive cases. Attorney General Raúl Torrez emphasized that while parties have opportunities during voir dire to identify bias, dissatisfaction with a verdict cannot justify post-trial scrutiny of jurors' beliefs.
Defense counsel maintains that the request stems from concerns over trial fairness, not an attack on juror ideology. The Court's decision to pause proceedings highlights the ongoing balancing act between litigants' rights and the need to safeguard juror independence and security. A final ruling on the issue is pending.
Colorado study explores 25 years of civil jury trial discussions
Since 1998, civil jurors in Colorado have been permitted to discuss evidence during trials before formal deliberations, a reform later incorporated into the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. A recent study by Judge Juan G. Villaseñor examines the perspectives of judges and attorneys after twenty-five years of experience with this practice.
The study found that most Colorado district judges continue to support allowing juror discussions during trial. Judges reported that the discussions help jurors better retain evidence, remain more engaged throughout proceedings, and deliberate more effectively. Judges emphasized the importance of providing clear jury instructions to ensure that discussions do not lead jurors to form premature verdicts.
Attorneys expressed more divided views. While most attorneys did not object to the practice, some raised concerns that jurors might form early biases favoring plaintiffs. However, research cited in the study suggests that the influence of evidence presented later in the trial (a "recency effect") is more powerful than any early formed impressions. A new concern identified in the study involves alternate jurors: since they participate in discussions but may not ultimately deliberate, questions remain about the appropriate management of their role.
Judge Villaseñor concludes that Colorado’s experience with mid-trial discussions has generally been positive, improving juror comprehension and engagement without compromising fairness. He recommends continued judicial education on the practice and encourages other jurisdictions to consider pilot programs, noting the growing body of research supporting this approach.
Philadelphia courts launch post-jury service mental health support program
The Philadelphia courts have partnered with West Chester University to provide post-jury service mental health support to any trial juror experiencing anxiety or trauma related to their service. This initiative places Philadelphia among the few judicial districts in the country offering such support.
Starting immediately, judges will inform jurors at the conclusion of each trial about the availability of professional mental health resources through West Chester University’s Community Mental Health Services. The clinic offers confidential, low-cost, high-quality counseling to help jurors process their experiences.
Jury Commissioner Patrick Martin emphasized the importance of the program, noting that while many jurors experience little to no distress, others may feel the emotional toll of exposure to traumatic evidence and testimony. Common Pleas Supervising Judge Daniel Anders praised the partnership, underscoring the need to support jurors who fulfill a vital civic duty but may carry emotional burdens afterward.
Dr. Michele Pole, Director of West Chester University’s Community Mental Health Services, expressed enthusiasm for the collaboration, highlighting the program as an important confidential resource for jurors seeking help after their service.
NCSC and the Center for Jury Studies held a webinar on Wednesday April 9 and discussed this initiative with Philadelphia Jury Commissioner Patrick Martin.A recording of this webinar can be found here.
Jury rejects animator's claim that Disney stole idea for Moana
A federal jury in Los Angeles found that Disney did not steal ideas from animator Buck Woodall for its 2016 animated film Moana, People magazine reports. After just two and a half hours of deliberation, the jury unanimously determined that Disney’s filmmakers never had access to Woodall’s screenplay Bucky or related materials.
Woodall alleged that a former Mandeville Films employee, Jenny Marchick, shared his work with Disney, but Marchick testified she never forwarded the materials, and communications presented during trial showed she ignored Woodall’s outreach. Because jurors found no access, they did not consider whether the two works were substantially similar.
Disney argued that Moana's creators, John Musker and Ron Clements, drew inspiration from their earlier Disney films like The Little Mermaid and Aladdin, not from Woodall’s work. While Woodall's attorney expressed disappointment and indicated a possible appeal, a separate lawsuit by Woodall related to Moana 2 is still pending.