Stokes v. Muschinske, No. B280116 (D2d8 Apr. 8, 2019)
Juror #11 is the CEO of a company. During voir dire, he says doesn’t really want to be on a jury, because he has a big problem with the time commitment. But he also acknowledges that’s not like going to get him bounced for cause. Some time after Juror #11’s individual questioning was over, Plaintiff’s lawyer somewhat vaguely asked if any of the new jurors had been sued before. Juror #11 didn’t chime up.
Showing posts with label juror misconduct. Show all posts
Showing posts with label juror misconduct. Show all posts
Thursday, April 11, 2019
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Some Hearsay Stuff on Habeas
In re Bell, No. S151362 (Cal. Jun. 8, 2017)
A convicted capital defendant petitioned the Supreme Court for habeas relief due to alleged jury misconduct in connection with his conviction. The Court ordered the superior court to appoint a referee to conduct an evidentiary hearing to get to the bottom of what happened. After the evidentiary hearing, the referee found that the jury misconduct claim was unproven an thus that petitioner was not entitled to relief. Petitioner appealed that ruling back to the Supreme Court. In the process of affirming, the Court addresses a number of evidentiary issues that are of general applicability in civil cases.
A convicted capital defendant petitioned the Supreme Court for habeas relief due to alleged jury misconduct in connection with his conviction. The Court ordered the superior court to appoint a referee to conduct an evidentiary hearing to get to the bottom of what happened. After the evidentiary hearing, the referee found that the jury misconduct claim was unproven an thus that petitioner was not entitled to relief. Petitioner appealed that ruling back to the Supreme Court. In the process of affirming, the Court addresses a number of evidentiary issues that are of general applicability in civil cases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)