Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
I don't think there is any question that it is only natural to have a change or heart or buyer's remorse... the question is, should a jury be allow to discuss this with the public at large, after the trial and in addition to this, should they be able to profit from it?
|
Two questions, two answers. First, YES, a jury should be allowed to discuss the case after it is over--not while ongoing, of course. Any other rule would be an unconstitutional and unwarranted infringement on free speech. Second, YES, but I qualify that by saying as long as the deliberations are not tainted by the profit motive, and that's frankly getting harder and harder to determine.
Quote:
|
It seems to me it needlessly belittles the legal system and opens a big door for a mistrial or an appeal.
|
It may belittle the system, but as an attorney that has tried several dozen jury cases, I can tell you that I'm always interested in what went on in the jury room. I've learned quite a bit from hearing what jurors had to say about the cases I've been involved in--what I did right, what I could have done better, what I shouldn't have done at all, etc.
As for the mistrial or appeal, those are two different issues. A mistrial ends a proceeding before the conclusion, and juror misconduct can cause a mistrial. More often than not, if the misconduct is on the part of one juror that can be replaced with an alternate without causing a problem to the integrity of the trial, that is what is done.
The appeal is a trickier deal. In those cases, the proceeding is over and a verdict rendered. The party seeking to have a jury verdict overturned due to misconduct or mistake has a heavy burden to meet. There is a presumption that a verdict is arrived at fairly and in accordance with the law. Remorse after the fact is not grounds for a reversal (at least not in any state I know of); jurors often learn things after a trial that they didn't know during it, because of evidentary rulings, but upon getting the extra information, will say "that would have changed my mind." It takes a different kind of evidence, such as the seating of a disqualified juror or one that lied during the questioning, for a post-verdict motion to have any chance of success. The "appeal" actually starts with a motion for a new trial, and if denied by the trial court, then the appellate court is asked to review that decision.