Judge Publishes Detailed Jury Selection Procedures in High-Profile Case
Scofflaw Jurors "Invited" to Meet the Judge
Aol. reports that, after 23 citizens of Lima, Ohio failed to show up for jury service in the felony assault trial of Jacquavius Cooper, Common Pleas Judge Terri Kohlrieser issued “an invitation” to show up in his courtroom to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court. In a separate case, Judge Kohlrieser was joined by fellow judge Jeffrey Reed in holding ten citizens in contempt of court for ignoring their jury summons. The violators were ordered to pay a minimum $50 fine if they did not show up for jury service in a future case.
Death Qualifying 1,200 Potential Florida Jurors
News 4 Jax reports jury selection is underway in the death penalty trial in Jacksonville, Florida. The venire panel will be questioned this week in groups of 50. Noteworthy too, Florida amended its death penalty statute following a jury deadlock in the Stoneman Douglas HS shooting case to permit a nonunanimous verdict (8/4) for the death penalty. Florida is one of four states that does not require a unanimous verdict for a death sentence. Alabama requires at least a 10/2 decision. Missouri and Indiana permit the trial judge to decide if a sentencing jury deadlocks.
Judge's Indiscretion Causes Reversal of Pandemic Era Jury Verdict
In United States v. Sanchez, a federal jury deliberated in a courtroom equipped with a live video camera rather than a secluded deliberation room. This occurred during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic as a public health precaution. After Mr. Sanchez was convicted by the jury but before sentencing, defense counsel discovered this circumstance and requested the trial judge ask each juror three questions: (1) whether they knew there was a camera in the courtroom during jury deliberations; (2) whether they knew that the camera was operating; and (3) whether they mentioned or discussed the camera's presence with anyone. Counsel also suggested these questions be submitted to the jurors in writing rather than at an in-court evidentiary hearing. The district court denied Sanchez's request, concluding that his concerns about the camera were too speculative to justify “such a fishing expedition.” On appeal, Sanchez argued the presence of a camera in the courtroom where the jury deliberated may have “exerted a ‘chilling’ effect” on their deliberations, creating genuine concerns of improper influence and requiring the district court to investigate. A panel of the federal 10th Circuit agreed saying, “[T]he presence of a camera during jury deliberations—even a camera that emitted no light or sound and did not record audio—could constitute an improper influence such that the district court had a duty to investigate the matter.” It reversed and remanded for the district court to conduct further investigation by questioning the jurors, whether in person or in writing, to determine whether the camera's presence influenced jury deliberations.
ERROR CORRECTION: In last week’s Jur-E Bulletin, the caption to the first featured item misquoted the title of the ABA work product. It should have read "ABA Releases Revised 'Principles for Juries & Jury Trials.'"