Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Investigating Jurors On Social Media, Caren Myers Morrison
Investigating Jurors On Social Media, Caren Myers Morrison
Pace Law Review
This essay proceeds in three parts. First, it examines the current state of jury investigations, and how they differ from those conducted in the past. Then, it describes the evolving legal and ethical positions that are combining to encourage such investigations. Finally, it offers a note of caution–condoning such investigations while keeping them hidden from jurors may be perceived as unfair and exploitative, risking a possible backlash from outraged jurors. Instead, I propose a modest measure to provide notice and explanation to jurors that their online information is likely to be searched, and why.
#Snitches Get Stitches: Witness Intimidation In The Age Of Facebook And Twitter, John Browning
#Snitches Get Stitches: Witness Intimidation In The Age Of Facebook And Twitter, John Browning
Pace Law Review
In order to better understand witness intimidation in the age of social media, one must examine both the forms it has taken as well as the response by law enforcement and the criminal justice system. As this article points out, the digital age has brought with it a host of new ways in which witnesses may be subjected to online harassment and intimidation across multiple platforms, and those means have been used to target not only victims and fact witnesses but even prosecutors and expert witnesses as well. The article will also examine potential responses to the problem of witness …
Contaminating The Verdict: The Problem Of Juror Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman
Contaminating The Verdict: The Problem Of Juror Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
This article describes the myriad ways in which misconduct by jurors can contaminate a trial and verdict and the ability of courts to remedy such misconduct. Part II examines the case law in which criminal defendants have challenged their convictions on the basis of juror misconduct. Defendants have claimed that jurors were influenced by external contacts with third parties, exposed to extraneous, non-evidentiary information, engaged in contrived experiments and improper reenactments in the jury room, made dishonest and misleading statements during jury selection, engaged in conduct demonstrating bias and prejudgment, suffered from physical and mental impairments, engaged in pre-deliberation discussions …
How Juries Get It Wrong - Anatomy Of The Detroit Terror Case, Bennett L. Gershman
How Juries Get It Wrong - Anatomy Of The Detroit Terror Case, Bennett L. Gershman
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
This Article describes the background and trial of the four defendants in the so-called Detroit “Sleeper Cell” terrorist prosecution. It examines the evidence relied on by the jury to reach its verdict, particularly the testimony of a key turncoat witness who accused the defendants of participation in a terrorist conspiracy. Part III examines how the jury's search for truth was corrupted by false, misleading, and incomplete proof. It identifies several extrinsic sources of jury error including suppressed evidence, dishonest and unreliable testimony, partisan experts, coaching, obstructed cross-examination, and inflammatory arguments. Finally, with the Detroit terrorist trial as the model, Part …
Judicial Misconduct During Jury Deliberations, Bennett L. Gershman
Judicial Misconduct During Jury Deliberations, Bennett L. Gershman
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
The author considers the two principal types of improper judicial behavior that may occur during the jury deliberation process. Judicial conduct that attempts to place undue pressure on a jury to reach a verdict may include verdict-urging instructions, threats and intimidation, and inquiry into the numerical division of the jury on the merits of the verdict. Judicial participation in private, ex parte communications with jurors may also subvert orderly trial procedure and undermine the impartiality of the jury. Neither kind of judicial conduct may be allowed to compel a verdict from a jury.