New Jersey appellate court decision highlights jury impartiality and defendant rights in reversal of conviction
In a recent decision, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, vacated the conviction of Leonard J. Mazzarisi III, emphasizing significant issues related to jury processes and evidentiary standards. Central to the court’s ruling was the improper admission of a video recording of Mazzarisi’s police interrogation, during which he repeatedly invoked his right to remain silent. Despite instructions to the jury not to consider his silence as evidence of guilt, the appellate court found that allowing jurors to hear these invocations created undue prejudice and compromised Mazzarisi’s Fifth Amendment rights.
The decision also addressed concerns about the role of jurors as impartial evaluators of evidence. Law enforcement officers were permitted to narrate surveillance footage and identify the defendant based on their subjective interpretation of the video, which the appellate court found improperly influenced the jury's role. Further complicating the trial, family members were asked to identify the defendant in the footage, despite having limited recent contact with him, reinforcing what the court described as improper bolstering of opinion testimony.
This case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of maintaining clear boundaries in trial procedures to preserve the jury's independence and protect a defendant’s constitutional rights. The conviction has been reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Pennsylvania mandates judges' presence during civil jury selection
Starting April 1, 2025, Pennsylvania will require judges to be present during civil jury selection unless litigants opt out. This landmark rule, approved by the state supreme court, shifts away from the long-standing practice in Philadelphia of court staff managing voir dire without a judge in the room. The change, prompted by discussions following the Trigg v. Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC case, aims to ensure consistency, fairness, and more informed rulings during jury selection.
Proponents, including legal experts and trial attorneys, praise the reform for fostering greater cohesion in courtrooms. Judges observing nonverbal cues from prospective jurors can make more informed decisions on challenges for cause, a process critical to fair jury selection. Although initially met with mixed reactions, the transition is being embraced, with Philadelphia judges already participating in voir dire more frequently.
While some anticipated logistical challenges due to heavy caseloads and judicial vacancies, attorneys report that judges are adapting effectively. Legal professionals predict that the requirement will become routine, enhancing fairness and efficiency in civil trials across the state.
Supreme Court petition challenges jury's role in copyrightability determinations
The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to resolve a significant legal question: Should issues of "copyrightability" in cases involving intellectual property disputes be decided by judges or juries? This debate arises from a petition filed by Strategic Technology Institute, a defense contractor, against MGMTL LLC, its former business partner, following a $180,000 jury verdict in a copyright and trade secret misappropriation case.
Strategic Technology contends that copyrightability—the determination of whether certain elements of a work are eligible for copyright protection—is a matter of statutory interpretation better suited for judges. The petition highlights a split among federal circuits, where some assign this determination to juries (e.g., Fifth, Ninth, Eleventh circuits), while others leave it to judges (e.g., First, Second, Fourth circuits).
This issue is especially relevant for cases involving software, as Strategic Technology argued that the "idea" behind MGMTL's software, which automates Department of Defense forms, should not be protectable. The company also invoked fair use defenses, all of which were rejected by the jury. If accepted by the Court, the decision could clarify procedures in intellectual property trials nationwide.
The case, Strategic Technology Institute v. MGMTL LLC, offers a critical look at the evolving relationship between technology, intellectual property law, and the jury's role in these complex cases.
U.S. Attorney's Office announces Georgia inmate and associate indicted for wire fraud conspiracy connected to jury scam
Federal prosecutors have charged Anthony Sanders, a Georgia inmate, and his associate, Marlita Andrews, with conspiracy to commit wire fraud after allegedly scamming a Sarasota woman out of over $12,000. If convicted, both face up to 20 years in federal prison. Authorities also seek to forfeit $12,825, representing proceeds from the scheme.
The scam involved Sanders, operating from prison using contraband phones, and Andrews, who acted as his outside accomplice. Posing as a deputy from the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office, the scammer falsely claimed the victim had a warrant for her arrest for missing jury duty. To resolve the "warrant," the victim was instructed to deposit funds into a Bitcoin ATM, disguised as a “Bonding Transition Center.” The victim transferred over $12,000 into accounts linked to Andrews’s Bitcoin wallet, which were quickly emptied and dispersed into other accounts.
Investigations uncovered that Sanders used phones in prison to coordinate the fraud and direct the movement of funds. He also arranged for prepaid phones to be sent to him in prison via drones. Scammers use personal details about victims to appear legitimate and manipulate caller ID to mimic local authorities.
The case, investigated by the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office and the FBI, underscores the need for vigilance against scams targeting jurors. Authorities remind the public that legitimate law enforcement or courts will never demand immediate payment over the phone.
The Center for Jury Studies has developed a toolkit for courts to inform jurors about scams. CJS has also created a poster that can be hung in public areas in the courthouse and other government office buildings.
Free screening of Judging Juries with expert panel discussion
Join NACDL and NAPD on Thursday, January 23, for a special screening of Judging Juries, a 22-minute documentary exploring barriers to jury service that undermine fair cross-section representation. This is a great chance for readers who missed the private screening of the documentary last fall to catch a showing. For all viewers, the screening will be followed by a panel discussion with Will Snowden and Porsha Shaf'on Venable from the Juror Project, and Nina Chernoff, a leading expert on fair cross-section challenges.
This free webinar is open to the public, but registration is required. Note: CLE credit is not available for this program.
Date: Thursday, January 23
Time: 3:00–4:30 p.m. ET | 12:00–1:30 p.m PT
Cost: FREE