Is It Lawful to Vacate a Jury Acquittal That’s Combined with an “Inconsistent” Guilty Verdict?
That is a question facing the Supreme Court in McElrath v. Georgia. It is a case where a Georgia jury acquitted Damian McElrath of malice murder for reason of insanity in the stabbing death of his adoptive mother but found him guilty but mentally ill on separate charges for felony murder and aggravated assault based on the same underlying facts. The Georgia Supreme Court vacated the entire verdict after finding it to be “repugnant,” or contradictory. Earlier this week, McElrath’s attorney argued Georgia's attempt to retry him for malice murder runs afoul of the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, which states that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” The National Law Journal reports that during oral argument several Supreme Court justices expressed discomfort with the idea of setting aside an acquittal on the grounds it was logically incompatible with the rest of the jury’s verdict on other charges. For example, Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed out that Georgia's practice of vacating such “repugnant” verdicts is unique in American courts saying, “Now, shouldn’t that tell us something? That 230 years in this country’s history, we have respected acquittals without looking into their substance.” Justice Elena Kagan opined, “The jury might have made a humdinger of a mistake in the way that you're suggesting, but, in addition, the jury might have decided to compromise things out or to show leniency.”
Veteran Trial Lawyers Discuss the Evolution of Jury Conduct in Police Misconduct Cases
The ABA Journal’s Legal Talk Network published an interview with Illinois litigators James Sotos and Ronald Safer regarding their experiences with jurors in civil cases—often against municipal police during the COVID pandemic. The YouTube broadcast provides a running transcription of the dialogue.
Outgoing & Incoming Chief Justices Share Visions About Jury Trials & More
The Herald Review newspaper in Cochise County, Arizona conducted a joint interview with outgoing Chief Justice Robert Brutinal and Justice Ann Scott Timmer. The article describes their planned statewide tour of 15 county courts to discuss plans to better serve rural courts and other policy issues. They also described their firm support for the recent supreme court rule abolishing peremptory strikes in jury trials. Chief Justice Brutinel said he received “a ton of feedback, both positive and negative” about the change, but he does not expect any tweaks to the new rule, in part because the change has strengthened the concept that citizens should not be deprived of their right to serve on a jury without cause. “I’ve heard from a lot of judges that say it works really well. It gets you a better cross-section of a jury and takes away a lot of the arguments you have on issues of whether a strike was racially motivated.”
Trial Consultant Responds to Judge’s Criticism of Using “Jury Consultants”
JDSupra published Ken Broda-Bahm’s retort to U.S. District Court Judge Marsha J. Pechman’s provocative article, “Why Jury Consultants May Not Be Worth It and Other Tips from Judges.” Judge Pecham argues trial attorneys should not use consultants to “read people” in voir dire. In response, Mr. Broda-Bahm asserts, “This reflects a durable but dated view of what consultants actually do. We are analysts, not mind readers. Ultimately, if a consultant or a lawyer is selling themselves on the ability to ‘read’ people, they are selling something they don’t have.”