Sentences with phrase «about other jurors»

Not exact matches

November 24, 2015 After weeks of listening to people talk about Albany politics, jurors may have turned to the dark side and started treating each other not so nicely — and less than two hours after jury deliberations for the Silver trial began on Tuesday.

Two other jurors joined in voicing concerns about the length of the trial and the burdens of jury service.

Other witnesses on Monday included former Assistant Attorney General Richard Rodgers, who told jurors about reforms instituted in 2007 by then - Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, now, of course, the governor.

That's not to say touch evidence shouldn't be used to help solve crimes, but jurors need to be presented with information about its limitations or wrongful convictions may ensue, while other convictions may fail or be overturned on appeal.

«I never like to judge other peoples»,» says Ron English, the famed pop surrealist painter about being the guest juror for Surreal Salon 10, an annual juried competition at Baton Rouge Gallery in Lou

In a memorandum to district court judges, Judge Julie Robinson, the committee chair, wrote that the model instructions were developed to address the increasing incidence of jurors using such technology to conduct research on the Internet or communicate with others about cases, which has «resulted in mistrials, exclusion of jurors, and imposition of fines.»

Reed concludes that as with other juror studies, it's difficult to arrive at definitive conclusions about trends because there are so many variables (which I realized in discussing another recent study concluding that English - speaking Hispanics get better results at trial).

And apparently, other jurors spend time online, blogging about their experience sitting on a jury or griping about being called for jury duty.

...» Later during a recess some of the other jurors talked about how watching all the legal shows on TV made them think they were smarter than the PD.

The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management «developed these instructions to address the increasing incidence of juror use of such devices as cellular telephones or computers to conduct research on the Internet or communicate with others about cases,» wrote Judge Julie Robinson, committee chair, in a memo to district judges.

Often we hear in the FIJA office from or about jurors who initially voted Not Guilty, but changed their vote to Guilty because they couldn't convince the other jurors.

1 For attempts to measure the effect of advocacy quality through other means, see, e.g., Banks Miller et al., Leveling the Odds: The Effect of Quality Legal Representation in Cases of Asymmetrical Capability, 49 Law & Soc» y Rev. 209 (2015)(finding that high quality representation evened the odds for asylum applicants and that asylum seekers fared better when unrepresented than when represented by a poor lawyer); Mitchell J. Frank & Dr. Osvaldo F. Morera, Professionalism and Advocacy at Trial — Real Jurors Speak in Detail About the Performance of Their Advocates, 64 Baylor L. Rev. 1, 38 (2012)(finding statistically significant correlations in criminal cases between jurors» perceptions of closing argument persuasiveness and jury verdict, and finding statistically significant correlations in civil cases between perceptions of defense counsel's closing argument persuasiveness and defense verdict); James M. Anderson & Paul Heaton, How Much Difference Does the Lawyer Make?

There have also been concerns about jurors doing online research, «visiting» a crime scene on Google Earth or following Twitter or blog feeds written by reporters or others during a trial.

U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson of Kansas, the chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, told the nation's judges in a Jan. 28 memo that the new jury instructions «address the increasing incidence of juror use, of such devices as cellular telephones or computers, to conduct research on the internet or communicate with others about cases».

With the very narrow, newly created exception for guilty verdicts in criminal cases reached based upon racial or other kinds of impermissible prejudice rather than the facts of the case (or cases where there is an outside influence on the jury such as a bribe or someone looking up facts or law on the Internet), no one can challenge a jury verdict based upon the reasoning and conclusions actually made by the jurors, even if someone learns that the jury knowingly or accidentally didn't follow the law or was mistaken about the facts.

Is a juror having a prior knowledge of law, other than what has been presented to them in the specific court case, allowed to teach others about any such understandings they have held prior to the start of the proceedings?

We have all see on TV the judge instruct jurors that during trial they are not to speak about the case with anyone, even other jurors, unless all jurors are present and they are deliberating.

Most judges find out about juror misuse of Net media from tattling by other jurors or lawyers (perhaps lawyers who feel they are losing the case?).

Many of the judges gave objective bases for their favourable opinions about the juries» understanding of the issues (see box below)-- notably the questions asked by jurors or the fact that they discriminated between different defendants, convicting some, while acquitting others.