Judges are always too quick to dismiss "problem" jurors.
What would you do if you were the judge in this situation?
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
4 comments:
I think it depends on the level of insubordination. The judge should briefly interview the problem juror and, if necessary, the others to corroborate the level of disregard for the court's instructions. Assuming the court confirms the juror is unwilling to decide on the law and facts, the idea of rehabilitating a problem juror at such a late stage is too much to tolerate when you have a person's freedom/liberty on the line and a viable alternate ready to weigh in and render a swift and fair verdict who hasn't demonstrated any notion of bias or insubordination.
A juror can’t be unconvinced by the ‘evidence’?
This is a case persecuted based on personal attacks first and pitching accomplices as victims and (trafficking) victims as compensated participants in the conspiracy. I hope he walks.
Many of my colleagues tell jurors they are entitled to their opinion even if it is 11-1. If that is the law, then that’s the end of the discussion. Unless the juror is not deliberating. Like if the juror refuses to talk or participate in deliberations and being blockheaded and obstinate and unwilling to listen to reason. Then the judge’s duty is clear …
Recommend them for a judicial appointment.
Thanks folks.
I’ll be here all week.
Not Guilty of RICO and kidnapping.
Guilty of hiring help (male hookers) to party..
Massive gov’t fail.
Debaucherie isn’t a crime, Trump will pardon him eventually.
Post a Comment