|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 12:38 AM EDT |
PJ. At first I would have agreed with you, but then I got to
thinking.
If Samsung lawyers are reading this, most of the information
on juror misconduct mentioned here would not be useful to
them. But there might be one post containing an obscure
precedent that might be useful to the lawyers. So I think it
is actually good.
There is also a second point. This whole concept of mistrial
due to jury misconduct is not based directly in the
Constitution or laws Congress passes. Rather it is based on
rules of procedure the court lays down for itself, the
common law, and a sense of what is appropriate.
I think to some degree the courts should listen to public
opinion when clarifying the rules in such cases. I also
think that discussions like this are important in forming
that public opinion.
I also don't think that public opinion should be the
predominate factor.
The Apple fanboys, will try to shape the public opinion so
that any jury verdict cannot be set aside, which I do not
think is a good rule. For example, if a man is charged with
a drunk driving and it later turns out that a juror lied and
his brother was killed by a drunk driver, then I think the
verdict should be set aside.
I'm sure that Samsung fanboys will argue that any verdicts
which seem to be tainted should be set aside. Today I saw a
television reporter hijack a juror from the recently
concluded Drew Peterson trial. The juror tried to put her
off saying he hadn't slept the night before. She wouldn't be
put off and got him to say some things, despite clearly
being very tired and incoherent. I'm sure nothing he said
would cause the verdict to be overturned, but I think a very
good lawyer might spin it that way.
As for my opinion in this case. Mind you, my opinion, not
what the law says. In the case that a juror gives repeated
interviews, some in video form, so that they are not
hearsay, and makes statements clearly indicating juror
misconduct, the judge should investigate and if she finds
the statements accurate, should set aside the verdict.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 04:11 AM EDT |
Guys, there is no point in trying to guess. We have to wait and
see.
I agree that it will be much more interesting to see what the
real lawyers think of and actually do, than to listen to the peanut gallery (in
which I sit) comment on what could/should happen.
This is something
new. I've asked lawyers. Nobody knows what will happen for sure. IT's that
unusual.
But could you elaborate a bit on this? What is so unusual?
I would assume that juries coming to, what seems like, odd decisions (often at
least one side looses), perhaps based on misunderstandings of
law/testimony/evidence, or one juror, presumably, leading/convincing the rest of
the group (groups are like that) would be quite common. So is the unusual part
really, that a juror gave interviews about the case (on video even)?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 12:54 PM EDT |
>Guys, there is no point in trying to guess.
Oh, come on! If we're not allowed to wildly speculate on the
law in the comments section of a legal blog, where can we?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bilateralrope on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 02:23 AM EDT |
My prediction is that the appeals court will find another reason to order a
retrial. Since the most any ruling on the jury's behavior can do is cause a
retrial, and they have already ruled that one will happen, then the jury's
behavior is irrelevant and thus they won't issue any ruling on it.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
