Jury stuff from other blogs in the last two weeks includes:
1. New cases.
Gideon at a public defender reports on State v. Phillips, a Connecticut appellate decision in which four different jurors testified that a fifth juror was racially prejudiced. The trial judge held that any prejudice hadn't affected the deliberations, but the appellate court reversed because that was the wrong standard: "If the court does find that a juror is racially biased, through speech orconduct, such conduct is ipso facto prejudicial and the defendant is entitled to a new trial".
Meanwhile, Barry Barnett at Blawgletter beat me to Wednesday's opinion in Alcala v. Emhart Industries, Inc. where Chicago federal judge Amy St. Eve refused to let the lawyers ask voir dire questions about jurors' attitudes on lawsuits and tort reform. The Seventh Circuit said this was fine, since Judge St. Eve did ask the jurors about their experiences with lawsuits and whether they had any beliefs that would keep them from being impartial. Barry has a great time imagining the tort-reforming juror who might have "made his way onto the jury by denying, silently to himself, that he couldn't judge the case impartially."
2. Follow-ups.
Further on things mentioned here: Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice starts from the posts here earlier this week on Batson, and considers "the ugly subject of reverse Batson challenges." (Because yes, defense lawyers, and yes, civil lawyers, Batson applies to you too.)
J. Craig Williams at May It Please The Court adds thoughts on the California Peregrine trial, where witnesses have been barred and a juror has been dismissed for reading a trial blog written by a local lawyer who's being paid to cover the trial by an anonymous law firm.
Eric Turkewitz at New York Personal Injury Attorney Blog follows the malpractice case brought by Notre Dame football coach Charlie Weis against two doctors. The trial was set for February, but that didn't work out; the judge had to declare a mistrial after a juror became sick and the defendant doctors rushed forward to save him. This week a new trial ended in a verdict for the doctors.
3. Good advice
Adam Levin of Southern Criminal Law and Justice had a good idea, and sent a long list of questions about criminal defense practice to lawyers he admired. Mark Bennett at Defending People has started a series answering them (the first post is a reading list), and Jon Katz at Underdog Blog has his answers here. As always, civil lawyers can use their advice too. From Jon, for example: "Q. What is the most overlooked tool of investigation? A. Close and deep listening."
More good advice for civil and criminal lawyers alike: Steven Gustitis at The Defense Perspective starts a series on "building the persuasive case" with a detailed post on how to get the facts.
Finally, a tidbit from me: remember to ask experts what their opinion is "to a reasonable degree of professional certainty in the field of ________", and you'll save yourself the many minutes of agony I spent in front of one of my first juries, having objections sustained to one attempt after another because I didn't know that. This tip may not be needed much longer, though; Walter Olson at Point of Law reports on recent proposals to change the standard.
4. The high cost of trials.
Why are there fewer jury trials? Maybe in part because so many lawyers struggle to try cases within a budget that reflects their value to the client. Stephen Rosenberg at Boston ERISA & Insurance Litigation Blog reports on recent research suggesting that "the costs of patent infringement litigation actually exceed the economic value across all industries of patenting inventions." Eric Goldman of Technology & Marketing Law Blog reports on how Susman Godfrey prices plaintiff's patent cases here.
Meanwhile on the criminal side, the WSJ Law Blog reports on the eight-figure fees paid in the defense of recent prominent criminal cases. (Some were awfully close to nine figures.) Simple Justice argues here that big firms are the wrong choice for these cases; I don't think that's always true, but the post is good.
5. Don't stereotype rural life
In a lovely post at Concurring Opinions, Melissa Waters points to a new Connecticut Law Review article arguing that "law's rhetoric - and therefore law itself - lags behind reality, due in part to out-dated assumptions about rural communities." For trial lawyers, the article is a reminder that we stereotype rural jurors in the same way. For Melissa Waters, it had a more personal connection: the article cites an opinion by her dad, who was a federal judge in Arkansas, and she tells a nice story about him.
6. Juror blog of the week
Here's a California man who is requesting a deferral from jury duty, because the date doesn't work for him. His jury date is right before he leaves for Nippon, Japan, for the 2007 Worldcon -- that's World Science Fiction Conference. Don't laugh: over 6,000 people traveled to Anaheim, California for the 2006 event.
Photo by Ho John Lee at http://www.flickr.com/photos/hjl/101443399/; license details there.)
