|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 08:22 AM EDT |
The thing is that nothing in there is on point.
The first is that they are all criminal trials.
The second is that they are all in state courts, which do
not set precedence over federal courts. If you look in
state courts you will find plenty of precedence for
overturning a verdict based on post trial statements.
At least we know that it is constitutional because otherwise
Federal Courts would have overturned it.
Also, not just looking at your precedents but what I've
seen, generally when the issue reaches an appellate court
and they consider jury misconduct seriously, they usually do
not rule a mistrial but order the judge to investigate the
matter.
From what I've read so far, I think if I were arguing in
front of the judge, I could hobble together a good argument
for reversal. Though it would be a Frankenstein type
argument hobbled together from different cases in different
court systems, mostly from state courts, but occasionally
some federal decisions. I think Quin with their legal
training and far better resources then me, can put together
a much better argument. However I suspect that even in broad
terms we are viewing something new here.
Mouse The Lucky Dog[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|