Juror Misconduct Law in Review

Because the ONLY evidence you want the jury to hear ... is in the courtroom

(630) 849-3070

Google search

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.

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.