[conspire] (forw) Reiser trial: DNA tests partially flubbed, defence motion for mistrial
Breen Mullins
breen.mullins at gmail.com
Wed Feb 6 07:42:14 PST 2008
* Christian Einfeldt <einfeldt at gmail.com> [2008-02-05 23:00 -0800]:
>
>I wonder, though, how that would affect your eligibility to serve. For
>example, what would you say if the attorneys asked you in voire dire as to
>if you had researched law that might be pertinent to the case? The judge
>would at any rate instruct you at the end of the case to apply only the law
>that was contained in the jury instructions. So even if you used the law
>that you had researched, other than for your own background, it would seem
>that if it came out that a juror had researched the law AND discussed prior
>research during jury deliberations, that would be a basis for setting aside
>the verdict in a post-trial motion, at least in the civil arena. But maybe
>I'm wrong. It sounds like you have had some experience with this.
It was while a jury I served on was deliberating that one of our number
proved to have done some independent research. She came back one morning
with a printout from a legal dictionary website. She was dismissed from
the jury.
San Mateo County is very touchy about these things. Some years ago
a big murder case fell apart when a couple of jurors decided on their
own to visit the crime scene.
--
Breen Mullins
Menlo Park, California
More information about the conspire
mailing list