All threads

All of the threads for this selected topic

Final Class Feedback [12-01-20]

24 replies | 24 unread

Of what is this 'evidence'?

2 replies | 2 unread

Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo

28 replies | 28 unread

Feedback [11-30-20]

44 replies | 44 unread

Thanksgiving Thread

19 replies | 19 unread

Peremptory Challenges [11-23-2020]

77 replies | 77 unread

Feedback [11-17-20]

57 replies | 57 unread

Your questions, doubts and concerns about confrontation and cross as core jury process.

22 replies | 22 unread

Feedback November 10

17 replies | 17 unread

Feedback [11-09-20]

24 replies | 24 unread

Discussion Group 2 [11-9-2020]

19 replies | 19 unread

Discussion Group 1 [11-9-2020]

28 replies | 28 unread

Election Night

25 replies | 25 unread

George Fisher Caves [11-03-2020]

29 replies | 29 unread

Group 1 [11-03-2020]

53 replies | 53 unread

Group 2 [11-03-2020]

49 replies | 49 unread

Group 3 [11-03-2020]

35 replies | 35 unread

Feedback 11-2-2020

34 replies | 34 unread

Feedback 10-27-2020

47 replies | 47 unread

Discussion 10-27-2020

59 replies | 59 unread

Feedback 10-26-2020

51 replies | 51 unread

Hypothetical 10-19-20

49 replies

Feedback 10-20-2020

15 replies | 15 unread

Feedback 10-19-20

22 replies | 22 unread

Surveillance 10-19-20

46 replies | 46 unread

Feedback October 13, 2020

20 replies | 20 unread


31 replies | 31 unread

REVIEW - October 13, 2020. Please offer questions and concerns.

3 replies | 3 unread

Feedback Oct 6, 2020 - violence of discussion for some

7 replies | 7 unread

Feedback October 6, 2020

67 replies | 67 unread

Feedback Oct 5, 2020 Fair

4 replies | 4 unread

Gatecrasher - Who Wins?

15 replies | 15 unread

Blue Bus

25 replies | 25 unread

Conjunction --In what order should we decide the elements of the alleged crime?

21 replies | 21 unread

Prison Yard - Can WE prosecute all of them?

38 replies | 38 unread

Feedback [09-29-20]

17 replies | 17 unread

Would you be interested in joining together in threads while watching the Trump-Biden debate?

20 replies | 20 unread

feedback sept 28

26 replies | 26 unread

What is your biggest fear going forward?

40 replies | 40 unread

BIAS (in judgmen)t

9 replies | 9 unread

Feedback #1

30 replies | 30 unread

racism - anti-racism

41 replies | 41 unread

what is your passion?

40 replies | 40 unread

What do you feel you have to learn about fair trial? Do you feel that fair trial matters?

9 replies | 9 unread

Give Thanks

0 replies

Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
Whirlpool: Would this type of testimony not fall under the first exception?
Lyria: yeah this seems to be "extraneous prejudicial information"
Sullust: Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado
Ghelibol: First or second maybe?
Uranus: yeah, police officer brought in his extraneous experience?
Knotweed Meadow: This falls under the first exception
Belhaven: To me, it seems like it falls into both of the first two exceptions.
Cloud City: I think what they're trying to accomplish with the first one is like, a piece of evidence which hadn't been admitted
Triton: "9 out of 10 Mexican men take what they want" = 100% extraneous and prejudicial
Dione: even the second exception i feel like is applicable - outside influence was brought to jury
Milky Way: Does anyone have a good argument for why it is NOT extraneous prejudicial information? Hard to see other side here
Centaurus A: I think its the first one. I think 2 is more like bribes
Cloud City: but I like the idea of expanding it to include racism
Jedha: i agree with Cloud City
Loc Muinne: I think extraneous prejudicial information has to do with something like a newspaper article. I'm not sure that the juror's own experiences qualify.
Callisto: definitely the first
Uranus: I can see an argument that the police officer's statement was not "information" necessarily, but just an opinion
Brugge: I would advise the judge to consider whether the statements of the jurors are extraneous prejudicial and included in the exception and similarly if they are considered an outside influence. On the other hand basically everything that you want to impeach can be considered extraneous.
Messier 83: I think prejudicial information would refer to pieces of evidence entered
Uranus: It's not like the cop brought in a fact that had been excluded in trial (former conviction etc.)
Ross 248: I mean, I think it is extraneous prejudicial information, but you could argue this is just internal opinion in the jury's personal debate/deliberation instead
Athos: If a police officer is convicted of assault, couldn't we also call discussions of systemic injustice in the jury room extraneous or prejudicial under the above reasoning?
Callisto: can it fall under two?
Ghelibol: Even if the police officer's statements were just opinion, not every juror will have been in a position to differentiate between actual stats/facts and his "9 out of 10" opinion.
Saturn: It's a balancing act because i dont want to throw away an appropriate guilty verdict against an attempted child rapist on account of one racist juror. The defedant may not be entitled to a new trial. the counter argument is that at a new trial he can just be convicted again and you could imagine a situation in which all jurors have impermissible prejudice. But esp with the man lying about being able to be fair and impartial several times, perhaps this is extranously prejudicial. However, we do ask jurors to use their own experience and common sense to decide these things, but it should be impermissible to allow racism to be that experience. I think that this sort of thing should be its own exception, because i dont think it falls so neatly into any listed exception.
Ghelibol: There's an assumed authority in what he says for at least some people.
Darn Rowan: @Mahasim I agree with Centaurus, two seems to apply more to bribery
Cloud City: I think if you say it falls under one of these exceptions it won't be appealable, so just say it does and that's that
Tollana: I think the first kind of evidence usually is about bringing in info that a sequestered jury shouldn't know like info from the news, talking to outsiders etc. but definitely should fall under first exception
Whirlpool: @Brugge How do you cabin the rule so that "prejudicial" isn't weaponized in an unintended way?
Ross 248: i think prejudicial information is supposed to be sort of like what happened in 12 angry men, where one of the jurors brought in an outside exhibit (the knife) that wasn't a part of the initial trial
Ross 248: ^what procyon said
Neptune: the jury did not convict him of sexual assault. One could argue that the jury did not buy into what the cop was selling. I think that every juror may have a bias - expressed or not. The question should be what effect the prejudice of one had on the decision of the jury.
Brugge: @moon, I don't know
Athos: Speaking of 12 angry men, if these two jurors recognized there was inappropriate bias they had moral responsibility to hang the jury
Ghelibol: Without a better sense of the procedural details, I don't know the best strategy here. My gut instinct is to allow the court to evaluate this issue, and not ignore racism, but I don't know the impact that will have.
Whirlpool: If extraneous information is more like the knife in 12 angry men, then this might not fall under the first exception?
Belhaven: Under exception A, the "information" has 3 elements 1) extraneous; 2) prejudicial; 3) improperly brought. Under exception B, the "influence" must be 1) outside and 2) improperly brought. I think we need definitions of all of these terms
Whirlpool: What if the juror information "leaked"?
Belhaven: I think the problem of Juror 6 was not that what he said was offensive; the problem is that it seems to have led to a wrongful conviction.
Utapau: well yes but because the statements suggest there was a biased jury, that's what suggests there's something wrong about the conviction
Whirlpool: Could the judge move for special verdict or special interrogatory
Dione: i think a jury setting and a classroom setting are soooooo different from one another it doesn’t really make sense to compare them
Brugge: I don't see the relevance of surveillance of a Harvard classroom. There is very little ramification in a classroom.
Rozrog: @Belhaven: Why wrongful? All jurors agreed D was guilty, even the two jurors who complained about Juror 6.