Judge Rejects Alex Murdaugh's Jury Tampering Allegations in Bid for New Trial
The Associated Press reports that a specially appointed South Carolina jurist denied Alex Murdaugh’s request for a new trial claiming a clerk of court exerted undue influence on the jury. While retired South Carolina Supreme Court Justice Jean Toal concluded that Colleton County Clerk Becky Hill was “attracted by the siren call of celebrity,” she was unsure whether Hill was telling the truth in denying having spoken to the jurors about the case. Further, Justice Toal found, after hearing testimony from the twelve jurors, any comments made by Hill did not directly influence their decision to convict the prominent, now disbarred attorney of double murder of his wife and son. In her ruling, Toal set a high standard that Murdaugh failed to meet – that he must prove Hill’s alleged misconduct directly led jurors to change their minds to guilty.
How Trauma Takes a Toll on Jurors – And What Courts Can Do
A new article in The University of Alabama’s Law and Psychology Review (available on HeinOnline Database $$) highlights the need to implement more protections for jurors at all stages of a trial. In “A Disturbing Verdict: The Need for a More Proactive Approach to Jury Trauma,” Meredith Claunch describes the different types of trauma jurors may experience during their service and the tension between procedural integrity and strengthened juror protections. The author also examines the current programs that have been implemented to address juror trauma as well as how these programs can be expanded to protect jurors more proactively.
Federal Court: Guilty Plea Not Knowing or Voluntary Where Right to Impartial Jury Misrepresented
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that John Swan’s guilty plea was neither knowingly nor voluntarily made because prior to entering his plea, he was materially misinformed by his counsel about his right to trial by an impartial jury. Before entering his guilty plea, Swan was told by his attorney that the jury “would be [composed] of no one of minority color” and that he “wasn’t going to get a very good jury because it would be culled of any minorities.” Further, the district court failed to correct this misrepresentation during the Rule 11 colloquy. The 10th Circuit rejected the government’s claim that Strickland’s ineffective assistance of counsel standard applied to the issue. As stated by the appellate court, “[Swan] does not take issue with the quality of his representation as it pertains to plea counsel’s legal guidance … he states that he did not understand one of the rights he was giving up because plea counsel materially mischaracterized that right.”
Rethinking Out-of-Court Juror Inquiries
In the latest issue of Precedent, the journal of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, Juries Commissioner Paul Dore addresses the increasing issue of sitting jurors making inquiries about trial matters, such as by conducting research online or by viewing a place or object relevant to the trial. The author suggests that jurors may take such actions out of a diligent and conscientious approach to their service. In Dore’s view, such jurors are not slackers who don’t take their role seriously, but rather jurors who take their role too seriously. Further, he posits that jurors who gather their own information about a case outside of trial believe that such inquiries help in ensuring a fair trial. To counter this behavior, Dore suggests not only increasing the civil penalty (i.e., a fine) such conduct carries, but also utilizing judicial directions to educate jurors on the significance of out-of-court inquiries and their impact on a fair trial.