Over in the Apple wins thread in IMHO discussing the outcome of the Apple vs. Samsung patent case, there is some discussion of post-case interviews where the jury foreman has made statements that appear to imply that the jury made grave errors of law in determining their verdict. Specifically, the jury appears to have used incorrect criteria in determining whether prior art invalidated specific patents.
I do not wish to discuss the Apple vs. Samsung case here. Anyone wishing to argue about the merits of either Apple’s or Samsung’s positions can do so in another thread.
What I would like to ask is what remedy there is in general, not just in this case, when a jury makes a significant error on a point of law. (Suppose, if you like, that I’ve been found guilty of murder because the jury thought the judge defined murder in his jury instructions as intentional grilling, rather than intentional killing.) Can this form the basis of an appeal? Or does one petition the trial judge for a mistrial? I know that the jury is traditionally given a great amount of deference as a finder of fact, especially in the American system, but surely there is some remedy for them being flat out wrong either through malice or incompetence.
I can only speak to Ohio law, although many other states and the Federal system are similar if not identical.
Even if a juror’s later statements make it clear that the jury misunderstood its instructions in a criminal case, if there was an acquittal, the defendant remains acquitted. Double jeopardy otherwise.
If the defendant is found guilty in a criminal case and a juror’s later statements make it clear that the jury misunderstood its instructions, that will provide grounds for defense counsel to move for a directed verdict of acquittal. Probably succeed, too, if the misunderstanding was significant. If the trial judge doesn’t see things that way, it will surely be raised on appeal.
In a civil case, revealing statements like that by former jurors will lead to motions to set aside the jury verdict by whoever lost at trial, and again, may be raised on appeal.
As always, when asking a legal question, the jurisdiction is important. The answer for jury trials in criminal cases in Canada is the complete opposite of that given by Elendil’s Heir for Ohio.
In Canada, there is a prohibition on revealing jury deliberations; doing so is a criminal offence (Criminal Code, s. 649).
As a result, it is not open to inquire into the jury’s deliberations as a ground of appeal: R. v. Pan; R. v. Sawyer, 2001 SCC 42, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 344. This rule dates back to the great English judge, Lord Mansfield, who set it out in the case of Vaise v. Delaval (1785), 1 T.R. 11, 99 E.R. 944 (K.B.). The Supreme Court of Canada continues to follow that rule, to ensure that the jurors have complete freedom to consider all issues and to debate the matter fully in the jury room.
Several years ago there was a murder case in Saskatchewan which illustrated this principle: R. v. Perras (1974), 18 C.C.C. (2d) 47 (Sask. C.A.). The sheriff standing guard outside the jury room heard the following exchange from inside:
Five minutes later, the jury returned a guilty verdict, resulting in a mandatory life sentence for the accused.
His defence counsel challenged the decision on appeal, arguing that the sheriff’s evidence proved that the jury had not conducted itself according to law.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, sitting a full bench of five, unanimously dismissed the appeal, citing the principle that the jury verdict cannot be impeached by allegations of the deliberations of the jury. The Supreme Court referred approvingly to the decision in the Pan case.
Although, wasn’t there a case in Vancouver where the juror was charged because she seemed to have “fallen for” the defendant during the trial and started an affair with him afterwards?
IIRC they did not set aside the verdict, but they did charge the juror.
There is one exception to the principle that jury deliberations cannot be inquired into - when an individual is charged with obstruction of justice, which is what Guess was charged and convicted of.
The reasons for jury verdict are generally sacrosanct. Unless there is a clear, very clear error they will not be disturbed. However, if there is a clear, very clear, error of law, the defeated party has a good appeal on some grounds; poor instructions, manifest injustice, etc.
Criminal and civil appeals are governed by a way different set of laws, but either can be reviewed when a jury truly pisses the bed. But it is still a very high standard to prove it did.
If you want to say, “the jury got it wrong,” the standard is very high: something like, “no reasonable jury could have made that decision.” You don’t get to go back and interview jurors to try to show they we’re a bunch of dumbells.
If the jurors were taking bribes or something, that would be different. But just using the wrong decision method is never enough. They’re like a black box; you never ask what happened in there.
This is not true. Mrs. FtG was on a jury for a major case years ago. Ended up awarding the plaintiffs the biggest award in state history at the time. And, yes, the defendants’ lawyers did interview her (quite nastily) about the reasoning behind her decision, etc., and appealed, appealed, appealed.
In Ohio, jurors may be questioned by the trial lawyers immediately after the verdict is announced. It’s up to the judge as to whether or not to permit the lawyers access to the jurors there at the courthouse, though, and jurors may freely decline to speak with the lawyers. Many just want to go home.
At least in the criminal trial I was on a jury for, in California, attorneys were allowed to talk to jurors after the verdict, if the juror was amenable (I was, and did offer the prosecutor some input on how the case had been presented, which she thanked me for. Defense counsel didn’t seem to want to chat with jurors, since her client had picked up two felony strikes at 19).
Yes of course jurors can talk to lawyers if they want, after the trial is over, or to the judge or to their friends or CNN or anyone else. But what they say doesn’t matter anymore, so far as the verdict is concerned. Short of “we flipped a coin to decide” their reasoning, or lack thereof, doesn’t matter.