Jur-E Bulletin Editor Moves Onward
After almost 20 years of service as a judicial fellow at NCSC and long-time editor of the Jur-E Bulletin, Judge Greg Mize (ret.) shares this note:
Dear readers, I have submitted my resignation from NCSC employment. This is not simply retirement from a job. More accurately, I am undertaking a “re-tiring” — securing new traction for continuing public education about jury trials, professional writing, and private adjudications. It has been an honor to work with many chief justices, court administrators, judges, lawyers, and all manner of justice professionals. I am grateful for collaborations with many gifted NCSC employees. I especially give thanks for the likes of Paula HannafordAgor, Tom Munsterman, Hope Forbush, Tim Hughes, JoAnne Richardson, and Patricia Stanley.
If you would like to stay in touch, these are my active email addresses gemproduction@mac.com and gem36@georgetown.edu. My mobile phone number is 202607-6111.
Pennsylvania County Brings Students into Court for a Lesson on Jury Duty
The Altoona Mirror published an uplifting piece about a class of 9th graders going to the Blair County Courthouse to learn about jury service. Some students got to sit in a courtroom jury box while their classmates filled the gallery. From both locations, the students were in the same seats used by county residents on a jury selection day — but the students had no chance of being selected for jury service. Instead, President Judge Wade A. Kagarise handed down lessons in jury trial proceedings, with the help of courtroom personnel who demonstrated their roles in the process. “The defendant in this case is entitled to the presumption of innocence,” District Attorney Pete Weeks told the students as he described his burden of presenting a jury with enough testimony and evidence to render convictions. Defense attorney Dan Kiss followed up on Weeks’ presentation by reminding the students that his client — portrayed by adult parole officer Alec Bowers — would have no obligation for what was described as an upcoming trial on burglary and theft charges.
National Public Radio Airs Program Entitled "The Psychology of Jury Selection"
The current-events-timely NPR-1A program ran on April 25.
Jury Foreperson Has Buyer's Remorse Over Her Vote in Acquittal Verdict.
The Milford Mirror in Connecticut featured a story about a juror who telephoned the clerk of the Stamford County Superior Court a month after she joined other jurors to acquit Mark DiPietro of first-degree sexual assault. The juror expressed regret about her vote to acquit based upon a post-trial news report about the case. Her telephone led to a hearing before Judge John Blawie who presided over the trial. The article quotes the judge to say, “I don’t know what’s causing this person to feel this way, but what’s crystal clear from this is there’s no evidence of possible juror misconduct, merely buyer’s remorse.” The prosecutor and defense attorney ultimately agreed with the judge’s decision.
Plotters of Governor's Kidnapping Claim Juror Misconduct and Trial Mismanagement
According to Courthouse News Service, two of the five defendants convicted of plotting to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer are seeking a new trial based upon assertions the trial judge violated their constitutional rights when it held an ex parte hearing after the defense reported a juror told a co-worker before the trial "the defendants were guilty, and he'd make sure those guys were going to hang.” The appellate record shows that, after the posttrial hearing, the trial judge reported the subject juror denied making the statement. Their appeal is pending before the federal 6th Circuit Court.
Prosecutor Tells Jury To Do Their "Job" and Convict = Harmless Error
In a capital case captioned State v. J.L.J., the Kansas Supreme Court found that a prosecutor committed legal error by telling prospective jurors during voir dire it is the jury's job to convict a criminal defendant when the State proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The high court concluded the error was harmless for several reasons. The prosecutor's improper comments were limited to voir dire. While the prosecutor referred to voir dire in closing argument, he did not repeat the erroneous “do your job” language. Instead, the prosecutor reminded jurors that they had agreed they “could” find J.L.J. guilty if the state proved all the elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. And voir dire was separated from closing arguments by two days of trial at which nine witnesses testified and 114 exhibits were admitted. Finally, the prosecutor made no other comments during closing argument suggesting the jury was obligated to return a guilty verdict.