Summary: Nilgün Aykent Zahour analyzes the juror misconduct issues in United States v. Harris, No. 15CR335-2, 2018 WL 3869579 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 15, 2018) and United States v. Harris, 881 F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 2018). The issues we’re going to discuss are Internet research by both a juror and his girlfriend, Google search histories, colorable claims of extraneous influence, Remmer evidentiary hearings, and unsuccessful searches on the Internet and LinkedIn of parties, witnesses, attorneys and judges.
cell phone research
When suspected jury taint is reported to the trial court, does invited error preclude relief? You may be surprised. Watch SM JUROR’s video analysis of the juror misconduct issues in Fairbanks v. State, No. 49A02-1707-CR-1675, 2018 WL 4003474 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2018). Issues involve suspected juror misconduct, cell phone use, cell phone research, …
When suspected jury taint is reported to the trial court, does invited error preclude relief? Read More »