Juror Failed to Disclose Her Sister Works for Defendant's Attorney – Legal Impact?
In Davis v. State a jury convicted Leashebia Davis of capital murder. On appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court, Ms. Davis claimed the trial judge erroneously denied her motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct during jury selection. The alleged misconduct stems from a posttrial discovery that one juror worked as an administrative assistant to her defense lawyer. In denying the appeal, the high court determined there was no juror misconduct. During voir dire, the subject juror was questioned about her familiarity with the attorneys involved in Davis's case. A review of the record demonstrated that she was not at any point asked whether any of her relatives were employed by the attorneys. Consistent with her answers to the juror questionnaire, the juror indicated that she was not familiar with the attorneys involved in Davis's case. There was no evidence that the juror and defense counsel knew each other. Hence the juror was not dishonest in the jury-selection process or engaged in any misconduct. Defense counsel’s testimony during the hearing on the new trial motion––that he did not know the juror–corroborated the juror’s answers in her juror questionnaire and during voir dire. Further, the subject juror did not inform her sister of her service as a juror in Davis's trial until after the trial had concluded. Based on the foregoing, Davis has failed to demonstrate that Bradley engaged in juror misconduct.
UK Citizens Stand Up for Jury Nullification and Protest Prosecution Activist Colleague
Citizens belonging to an organization called Defend Our Juries are repeatedly holding silent vigils outside the Ipswich Crown Court and other courts across England. Resembling the American Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA), the picketers aim to highlight the value of “jury equity” (jury nullification in U.S. parlance). The latest demonstrations have been prompted by the prosecution of climate activist Trudy who was a Defend Our Juries demonstrator in another case. A video of the protesters outside the Truro Crown Court is shown here.
Australia Jury Policies to Change Soon
ABC Radio in Canberra reports the government of the Australian Capital Territory has enacted new laws that will affect how jury trials are conducted in the federal territory (like the District of Columbia in the USA). In an interview with Chief Justice Lucy McCallum listeners learn nonunanimous verdicts (11 of 12) will be permitted when there is an impasse after at least 6 hours of deliberating. In sexual assault cases a victim need not testify in the re-trial if a sworn statement is available from the first trial.
Court Investigates Claim that DA Systematically Tried to Exclude Jewish and Black Jurors
The Guardian (UK) reports federal trial judge Vince Chhabria is overseeing a discovery of capital case records held by the Alameda County (California) district attorney that may corroborate existing evidence that, for decades since 1977, prosecutors systematically took steps to exclude Jewish and Black venire members from death penalty cases. The judge has already released some of the records and intends to continue doing so as more documents are found.