A defendant was indicted for wire fraud, however for 2.5 years prior to that the civil litigation against him was the subject of hundreds of comments in a blog, some of which were inflammatory. Immediately after the verdict of guilty the government lawyers informed defense counsel of blog-post comments from the night before the verdict authored by an anonymous person claiming to have been a juror (#8) in the trial. See page 10 of the opinion linked below for the juror's posting.
The court interviewed the juror (#8) and she denied seeing the blog mentioned above or discussing it with other jurors.. The court declined to interview any other jurors. This was followed by still other posts from alleged jurors about #8's comments. The trial court declined motions for reconsideration and new trial. The appeal followed.
The Court of Appeals has remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. The moral here: TRIAL JUDGES MUST THOROUGHLY INQUIRE INTO ALLEGED MISCONDUCT BY JURORS DURING DELIBERATIONS.
U.S. v. Zimny: http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/15-2144/15-2144-2017-01-24.pdf?ts=1485284403
The court interviewed the juror (#8) and she denied seeing the blog mentioned above or discussing it with other jurors.. The court declined to interview any other jurors. This was followed by still other posts from alleged jurors about #8's comments. The trial court declined motions for reconsideration and new trial. The appeal followed.
The Court of Appeals has remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. The moral here: TRIAL JUDGES MUST THOROUGHLY INQUIRE INTO ALLEGED MISCONDUCT BY JURORS DURING DELIBERATIONS.
U.S. v. Zimny: http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/15-2144/15-2144-2017-01-24.pdf?ts=1485284403
No comments:
Post a Comment