Civil Procedure Commons^™

Will The Jury System Survive The Peña-Rodriguez Exception To Rule 606(B)?: The Court’S Response To Racial Discrimination By A Juror Leaves The Future Of The American Jury Trial System In Jeopardy, Taurus Myhand

Scholarly Works

The enforcement of no-impeachment rules has been a long-standing tradition in the United States preventing jurors from offering testimony as to impeach their own verdict. In March 2017, the Supreme Court changed course from centuries of jurisprudence and superseded the Federal Rules of Evidence with a new exception to Rule 606(b) in the Court’s decision in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado. The Court’s effort to “root out” racial bias in the justice system resulted in the debunking of the legislative authority granted to the Congress while creating an exception that does little, if anything, toward eliminating racial bias during jury deliberations. In …

Introduction: Reflections On The Future Of Discovery In Civil Cases, Paul W. Grimm

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Scc's Dilemma: What To Do With Interveners?, Richard Haigh

Articles & Book Chapters

At a conference in 2016, Osgoode Hall Law School Dean Lorne Sossin made the following offhand comment: “I think it is possible to tell the most important Supreme Court of Canada cases by the number of interveners that were involved.” I assume what he meant--and granted, it was somewhat tongue in cheek--that the more interveners there are in a case, the more important the case.

The comment intrigued me. Is it true? It is such a simple proposition. Intuitively, it seems right: more parties would wish to involve themselves in those cases that have larger impacts, or that represent more …