credibility determinations

Share SM JUROR podcast episodes & videos with your colleagues

Summary: Nilgün Aykent Zahour analyzes the juror misconduct issues in Palma v. Rite Aid Corp., No. B280445, 2018 WL 3640482 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2018).  The issues we’re going to discuss are evidence of a juror’s personal experiences, factors used in rebutting the presumption of prejudice, a juror’s self-translation efforts, sleeping jurors, and jurors who would not deliberate.  

Share SM JUROR podcast episodes & videos with your colleagues

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.

Share SM JUROR podcast episodes & videos with your colleagues

Summary:  Nilgün Aykent Zahour analyzes the juror misconduct issues in the case of People v. Bohl, 2018 COA 152, decided on November 1, 2018.  The issues we’re going to discuss are the denial of a motion to access juror contact information to prove juror misconduct after an evidentiary hearing, text messages between a juror’s wife and an attorney which reveal a juror performed outside research, and the finding that a timeline of events is not extraneous evidence.

Share SM JUROR podcast episodes & videos with your colleagues

Summary:  Nilgün Aykent Zahour analyzes the juror misconduct issues in the case of State v. Arndt, 426 P.3d 804 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).  The issues we address are: Internet research on Google and Wikipedia to find a definition of premeditation, the presumption of prejudice and whether that presumption can be overcome or rebutted, credibility determinations at an evidentiary hearing, and a working definition of the abuse of discretion standard of review.