DOCSLIB.ORG

A Profile of Hung Juries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Profile of Hung Juries Volume 9 • Number 1 CASELOAD HIGHLIGHTS EXAMINING THE WORK OF STATE COURTS A Profile of Hung Juries Jury trials are held in open ways. First, they challenge plex legal and evidentiary state courts between 1996 court, but jury deliberations perceptions about the cred- issues. This issue of Case- and 1998. Approximately can be mysterious, especially ibility and fairness of the load Highlights profiles the 70 percent of the 1.2 million when the jury “hangs.” A legal process. Beyond issues circumstances surrounding cases examined ended in a jury “hangs,” or is “dead- of basic justice, jury trials are hung juries. guilty plea, about 24 percent locked,” if jurors cannot expensive and require consid- were dismissed or disposed agree upon a verdict: the erable time and resources The National Center for State as an “other” disposition result is mistrial.1 Hung from the judge, court staff, Courts (NCSC) recently (e.g., diversion to an alterna- juries threaten court and legal counsel, litigants, and completed a national exami- tive court program such as a public interests in several witnesses. Finally, hung nation of hung juries, the drug court or transfers to a juries raise questions about first such cross-jurisdictional federal court), and less than 1 A judge may also declare a mistrial due to prejudicial error or an extradordinary event. juror abilities to handle com- study in nearly forty years. 3 percent were resolved by The background of the NCSC jury trial. Of the 33,000 study and methods used are cases disposed by a jury discussed to the left. trial, about 1,600, or 6 per- Study Background & Methods cent, “hung.” Regardless of The following figure shows whether resolved by bench The results presented in this Caseload Highlights are derived the manner in which felony or jury, about three-quarters from a 2002 National Center for State Courts’ study covering cases were resolved in 30 of trials end in conviction. 32 counties across 14 states and all federal circuit courts in two separate phases. The project was funded by the National Institute of Justice with the first results presented in Are Hung Juries a Problem? 2 The purpose of the study was to conduct State Felony Dispositions in 30 Counties, 1996-1998 a comprehensive analysis of the factors that relate to hung juries and determine how often juries hang and why. Total Felony Dispositions: 1,198,338 In the first stage of the project, NCSC compiled aggregate Bench Trial: 51,535 Jury Trial: 32,753 civil and criminal data from 1980 through 1997 for all 12 Dismissed: 123,561 federal circuit courts from the Administrative Office of the Convicted 71% U.S. Courts. In addition, NCSC assembled wide-ranging data Acquitted 19% Hung from the state courts and prosecutors’ offices supplemented Other: 168,120 6% Other Mistrials 4% with information from annual reports. These data covered 30 courts between 1996 and 1998 on state felony criminal trials. In the second stage of the study, researchers conducted an in- depth review of four sites on nearly 400 felony trials. In this phase, NCSC collected detailed data on felony jury trials that hung or ended in a verdict. NCSC surveyed jurors, judges, Guilty Pleas: 822,369 and attorneys to examine case characteristics and jury behav- ior across dispositions (hung or verdict) and compare hung jury rates across jurisdictions using comparable definitions. 2 Paula L. Hannaford-Agor et al., Are Hung Juries a Problem? National Center for State Courts, at http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Res_Juries_HungJuriesPub.pdf. National Center for State Courts • Brian J. Ostrom, Project Director • Nicole L. Mott, Neal B. Kauder, Brian J. Ostrom, and Paula L. Hannaford-Agor, Authors May 2003 A Profile of Hung Juries, continued I How Often Do Hung Juries Occur? Past reports are scarce, but time and between localities. Compared to the state rate of It should be noted that the suggest considerable variation The first phase of the cur- 6.2 percent, the federal hung federal D.C. Circuit Court in rates of hung juries. In rent NCSC study confirms jury trial rate for criminal reports a much higher hung 1966, Kalven and Zeisel re- these earlier findings. The cases averages 2.5 percent. jury rate of 9.5 percent (a ported an average criminal average hung jury rate across The federal Administrative clear exception to the other hung jury rate of 5.5 percent all 30 sites was 6.2 percent, Office of the Courts’ central- 11 federal districts). One nationwide of all jury trials.3 with slightly higher rates ized data system makes it potential explanation for this The only other empirical study ranging from 8 percent to possible to examine federal difference is the demographic of hung jury rates was con- 14.8 percent in 5 of the 6 rates over time. The trend characteristics of the court’s ducted in 10 California coun- California counties. The lines below show fairly jurisdiction; the D.C. court is ties in 1975 by the Planning figure below displays the stable rates from 1980 to the only federal circuit court and Management Consulting individual jurisdictional rates 1997 for both civil and that comprises a single, Corporation.4 They reported a and shows the variation criminal trials. highly urbanized city. All 12.2 percent hung jury rate, across counties. other federal circuits encom- with significant variations over pass multiple states. 3 Harry Kalven & Hans Zeisel, THE AMERICAN JURY 453 (1966). 4 Planning & Management Consulting Corporation, Empirical Study of Frequency of Occurrence Cases Effects and Amount of Time Consumed by Hung Juries, 4-30 to 4-37 (1975). State Hung Jury Rates (Average 1996-1998) Federal Hung Jury Rates (1980-1997) Los Angeles, CA 4% Shelby, TN Alameda, CA Travis, TX 3% New York, NY Criminal Riverside, CA Santa Clara, CA 2% Fresno, CA Total Harris, TX Wayne, MI 1% Civil Middlesex, NJ Dallas, TX Kings, NY 0% Westchester, NY 1980 1984 1988 1992 1997 Erie, NY Queens, NY Pima, AZ Bronx, NY Suffolk, NY San Francisco, CA St. Louis, MO Monroe, NY Nassau, NY Philadelphia, PA Macomb, MI Hennepin, MN Fulton, GA Pinellas, FL Oakland, MI Pierce, WA 0% 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% Note: Differences exist in the way courts calculated hung jury rates. A Closer Look at Four Large Courts Most courts do not systemati- yields lower rates. To make a hung on the most serious What Characterizes cally track hung jury out- fair comparison, in-depth charge facing the defendant in Hung Juries? comes in their automated data from the four sites were about 10 percent of the cases. case management systems. examined using three defini- To better understand the Many courts do not consider tional “levels”—determined Hung jury rates varied across circumstances and character- a hung jury to be a final if the jury hung on: the jurisdictions regardless of istics of hung juries, numer- disposition, but rather an 1. Any count against the which definition was used. ous social and legal factors intermediate case status. To defendant Rates of hung juries were were analyzed across the overcome difficulties of com- 2. The most serious count highest in the D.C. Superior four selected sites. NCSC parisons, NCSC obtained against the defendant Court at about 22.3 percent, examined demographic fac- detailed data on 382 felony 3. All counts against the followed closely by Los An- tors such as juror race and jury trials from Los Angeles, defendant geles County at 19.5 percent. general juror attitudes on CA; Maricopa, AZ; Bronx, Rates were lowest in the such issues as police, courts, NY; and the District of Co- As seen below, the first defini- Bronx Supreme Court where and crime in the community. lumbia.5 Los Angeles and tion yielded the highest rates– just three of 97 jury trials Specific attitudes relating to D.C. participated in the study almost 13 percent of the juries ended in a hung jury (3.1 per- the case at hand—law, evi- due to concerns over high hung on at least one count. cent). In these three cases, dentiary issues, and interper- hung jury rates, Maricopa’s The most restrictive defini- the jury hung on all counts sonal small-group dynam- participation allowed NCSC tion, where the jury hangs on faced by the defendant, so the ics—were also analyzed and to evaluate recent trial inno- all counts, occurred in 7.5 hung jury rate was identical found to be especially criti- vations, and the Bronx courts percent of the cases. Juries across all three definitions. cal in predicting the likeli- were solicited, in part, due hood of a hung jury. to the high volume of trials. Thus, these four sites were Hung Jury Rates in Four Sites The legal fairness, eviden- not intended to be representa- tiary, and jury dynamic tive of courts nationwide. Bronx 3.1% 3.1% issues are discussed on I Hung on all counts 3.1% the following two pages. Definitional differences are I Hung on most serious count one reason hung jury rates I Hung on any count Maricopa 3.3% vary. That is, a broader defi- 5.1% nition captures higher rates, 7.7% while a more restrictive one Los Angeles 11.7% 16.2% 19.5% District of 12.8% 5 The courts and corresponding dates for data Columbia collection were as follows: the Central 16% Division, Criminal, of the Los Angeles County 22.3% Superior Court, CA, June–October 2000; the Maricopa County Superior Court (Phoenix), AZ, November 2000–October 2001; the Bronx County Supreme Court, NY, February–August 2001; and the Superior Court of the District of All Sites 7.7% Columbia, April–August 2001.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Role of Race in Jury Impartiality and Venue Transfers Darryl K
    Maryland Law Review Volume 53 | Issue 1 Article 5 The Role of Race in Jury Impartiality and Venue Transfers Darryl K. Brown Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Darryl K. Brown, The Role of Race in Jury Impartiality and Venue Transfers, 53 Md. L. Rev. 107 (1994) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol53/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ROLE OF RACE IN JURY IMPARTIALITY AND VENUE TRANSFERS DARRYL IL BROWN* I. INTRODUCrION A. Two Cases in Point In 1990, Washington, D.C., Mayor Marion Barry was indicted on fourteen charges of drug possession and perjury arising from a federal investigation that yielded a videotape of Barry smoking crack cocaine in Washington's Vista Hotel.1 Barry and his attorney chose not to seek a change of venue for the trial, despite overwhelming pretrial public- ity about the case that included constant replays of the incriminating videotape on local television stations.2 The jury, drawn from the Dis- trict and comprised mostly of African Americans,3 convicted Barry, an African American, of only one misdemeanor possession charge-not the one arising from the videotape.4 The verdict was generally viewed as a victory for the defendant.' * Staff Attorney, University of Georgia School of Law Legal Aid Clinic.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Significant Findings from The
    AN OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS FROM THE CAPITAL JURY PROJECT AND OTHER EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF THE DEATH PENALTY RELEVANT TO JURY SELECTION, PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CAPITAL CASES JOHN H. BLUME CORNELL LAW SCHOOL 110 MYRON TAYLOR HALL ITHACA, NY 14853-4901 (607) 255-1030 [email protected] FALL 2008 Introduction The Capital Jury Project Studies--and other less comprehensive empirical and mock juror studies--provide extraordinarily useful information for lawyers involved in capital litigation. In this memorandum, I will provide an overview of selected, significant empirical findings, and, in some instances, offer suggestions as to how these findings may be used by capital defense lawyers. There is a temptation to ignore these studies, in part because some of the information contained in them is not encouraging or goes against the “conventional wisdom.” I am convinced, however, that we are better off confronting the information, and making fresh assessments about appropriate responses. This is not to say that there aren’t methodological problems with some of these studies, nor is it to deny that any individual study fail to capture the complexity of capital litigation. But there is valuable information here, particularly about what can go wrong, and what can be done to avoid some well-established pitfalls. I hope that this memorandum will facilitate the discussion and implementation of creative strategies leading to more effective representation of both clients facing the death penalty and those who have been sentenced to death. Additionally, if you have ideas for empirical research projects in your state that may be of interest to the Cornell Death Penalty Project, please do not hesitate to contact me.
    [Show full text]
  • Are Hung Juries a Problem? Executive Summary
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Are Hung Juries a Problem? Executive Summary Author(s): Paula L. Hannaford-Agor J.D. ; Valerie P. Hans Ph.D. ; Nicole L. Mott Ph.D. ; G. Thomas Munsterman M.S.E Document No.: 199372 Date Received: 04/03/2003 Award Number: 98-IJ-CX-0048 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. NATlONAL 1 INSTITUTE OF JUSllCE Are Hung Juries A Problem? Executive Summary The National Center for State Courts Paula L. Hannaford-Agor, J.D. Valerie P. Hans, Ph.D. Nicole L. Mott, Ph.D. G. Thomas Munsterman, M.S.E. September 30,2002 F This project was supported by Grant No. 98-U-CX-0048awarded by the National 5 of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in :ument are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or 1 of the U.S. Department of Justice or the National Center for State Courts. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Terminology 4 the Jury
    Cynthia Wilke, J.D., Instructor Introduction to the Law and Legal System of the United States Legal Terminology 4 The Jury prosecutor public official responsible for developing and bringing criminal cases to court (Staatsanwalt); (to prosecute) grand jury a group of persons (larger in number than a trial jury) asked to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to charge (to indict) a person with a crime indictment a written statement of the details of a criminal offense with which a person is being charged, may be issued by a grand jury or a prosecutor, depending on the rules of the jurisdiction (to indict) (Anklageschrift) bench trial trial without a jury where the judge decides all aspects of a case petit jury (trial jury) a group of persons asked to determine the facts of a case, after having been instructed on the law by the judge, in order to reach an outcome in a trial (jury trial) juror member of a jury (to serve on a jury; jury duty) array, venire jury pool group of prospective jurors summoned to court for jury duty challenge to the array a request to dismiss a group of jurors based on an incorrect method of selection to impanel the act of selecting a jury from the group of potential jurors voir dire examination of potential jurors for the purpose of determining who will serve on a petit jury challenge for cause a request from a party to a judge that a juror be excluded from the jury based on doubt as to the juror’s ability to be fair or impartial peremptory challenge privilege that each party has to exclude a limited number of prospective jurors from serving on a jury without giving reasons for the elimination hung jury jury whose members cannot agree on a verdict (deadlocked jury) unanimous complete agreement (unanimity; unanimous verdict) .
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Significant
    AN OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS FROM THE CAPITAL JURY PROJECT AND OTHER EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF THE DEATH PENALTY RELEVANT TO JURY SELECTION, PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CAPITAL CASES JOHN H. BLUME CORNELL LAW SCHOOL 110 MYRON TAYLOR HALL ITHACA, NY 14853-4901 (607) 255-1030 [email protected] FALL 2008 Introduction The Capital Jury Project Studies--and other less comprehensive empirical and mock Juror studies--provide extraordinarily useful information for lawyers involved in capital litigation. In this memorandum, I will provide an overview of selected, significant empirical findings, and, in some instances, offer suggestions as to how these findings may be used by capital defense lawyers. There is a temptation to ignore these studies, in part because some of the information contained in them is not encouraging or goes against the “conventional wisdom.” I am convinced, however, that we are better off confronting the information, and making fresh assessments about appropriate responses. This is not to say that there areN’t methodological problems with some of these studies, nor is it to deny that any individual study fail to capture the complexity of capital litigation. But there is valuable information here, particularly about what can go wrong, and what can be done to avoid some well-established pitfalls. I hope that this memorandum will facilitate the discussion and implementation of creative strategies leading to more effective representation of both clients facing the death penalty and those who have been sentenced to death. Additionally, if you have ideas for empirical research projects in your state that may be of interest to the Cornell Death Penalty Project, please do not hesitate to contact me.
    [Show full text]
  • A Jury of Her Peers: the Impact of the First Female Jurors on Criminal Convictions*
    Working Paper A Jury of Her Peers The Impact of the First Female Jurors on Criminal Convictions Shamena Anwar, Patrick Bayer, Randi Hjalmarsson RAND Justice, Infrastructure, and Environment WR-1146 March 2016 RAND working papers are intended to share researchers’ latest findings and to solicit informal peer review. They have been approved for circulation by the RAND Justice, Infrastructure, and Environment but have not been formally edited or peer reviewed. Unless otherwise indicated, working papers can be quoted and cited without permission of the author, provided the source is clearly referred to as a working paper. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. is a registered trademark. For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR1146.html Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2016 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous.
    [Show full text]
  • On Writ of Certiorari to the Arizona Supreme Court ______
    NO. 18-1109 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ___________ JAMES ERIN MCKINNEY, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent. ___________ On Writ of Certiorari to the Arizona Supreme Court ___________ BRIEF OF THE ARIZONA CAPITAL REPRESENTATION PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ___________ NATMAN SCHAYE Counsel of Record EMILY K. SKINNER AMY ARMSTRONG ARIZONA CAPITAL REPRESENTATION PROJECT 1201 E. Jefferson, Suite 5 Phoenix, AZ 85034 602-388-4023 Counsel for Arizona Capital Representation Project ii CAPITAL CASE QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Arizona Supreme Court was required to apply current law when weighing mitigating and aggravating evidence to determine whether a death sentence is warranted. 2. Whether the correction of error under Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982), requires resentencing. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................................. ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ..................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................... 1 ARGUMENT .............................................................................. 3 I. Arizona’s Unconstitutional Causal Nexus Test Deprived Capital Defendants of a Fair Sentencing Hearing. .................................................................................. 3 a. Consistent with Arizona Law, Sentencing Courts Refused to Consider Non-Casually Connected Mitigation. .................................................. 4 b. The Arizona Supreme Court’s Causal Nexus Test Deprived Defendants
    [Show full text]
  • Jury Impartiality in the Modern Era 2735 J
    Jury Impartiality in the Modern Era 2735 J Steblay N, Hosch H, Culhane S, McWethy A (2006) The new media on public perceptions of the justice impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to dis- system, especially in high-profile trials. Finally, it regard inadmissible evidence: a meta-analysis. Law Hum Behav 30:469–492 examines the viability of traditional judicial Steblay N, Dysart J, Wells G (2011) Seventy-two tests of responses to the newly wired and media-saturated the sequential lineup superiority effect: a meta- jury pool. It concludes with some sobering analysis and policy discussion. Psychol Public Policy reflections about the ability of the justice system Law 17:99–139 United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552 (D.C. Cir. 1979) to keep up with these technological changes. Wells G, Olson E (2003) Eyewitness testimony. Annu Rev Psychol 54:277–295 Wells G, Steblay N, Dysart J (2011) A test of the simul- The Traditional Concept of Juror taneous vs. sequential lineup methods: an initial report of the AJS national eyewitness identification field Impartiality studies. American Judicature Society, Des Moines The strength of the jury in an adversarial system of justice is the impartiality of the jurors. Impartial jurors are those who are willing and Jury Impartiality in the Modern Era able to consider the evidence presented at trial without preconceived opinions about the Nicole L. Waters1 and Paula Hannaford-Agor2 defendant’s guilt or innocence, to apply the 1 National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, governing law as instructed by the trial judge, J VA, USA and to deliberate in good faith to render 2Center for Jury Studies, National Center for a legally and factually justifiable verdict.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 2:14-Cr-00292-CB Document 136 Filed 03/30/17 Page 1 of 13
    Case 2:14-cr-00292-CB Document 136 Filed 03/30/17 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Criminal Action No. 14-292 v. ) ) Judge Cathy Bissoon RAYMONT WRIGHT, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MEMORANDUM A. BACKGROUND On December 30, 2014, the Defendant, Raymont Wright, was indicted and charged with one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(e). (Doc. 1). Defendant went to trial on this charge in May 2016. During trial, the government presented the testimony of several law enforcement officers involved in Mr. Wright’s arrest. Defendant did not testify or present any witnesses. The jury deliberated for a full day before they declared themselves hopelessly deadlocked. This conclusion came after the Court requested that they continue to deliberate. The Court then declared a mistrial. In March 2017, Defendant’s second trial began before a different jury. The government relied upon the same fact witnesses, and their testimony was substantially identical to their testimony in the first trial. The only noteworthy difference between the two trials was the government’s admission of two experts to opine generally about law enforcement’s ability to obtain fingerprint and DNA evidence from a firearm, neither of which was recovered in this case. The jury deliberations in the second trial took place over two days. At one point, the jury informed the Court of a deadlock, and the Court instructed the jury to continue deliberating.
    [Show full text]
  • DCCA Opinion No. 01-CF-1145(Corrected)
    Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 01-CF-1145 NOVEL HINTON, APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES, APPELLEE. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (No. F-459-01) (Hon. Zoe Bush, Trial Judge) (Argued En Banc April 29, 2009 Decided September 3, 2009) Walter S. Booth for appellant. Mary B. McCord, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Jeffrey A. Taylor, United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and Roy W. McLeese III, Assistant United States Attorney, were on the brief, for appellee. Jaclyn S. Frankfurt, Public Defender Service, with whom James Klein, Public Defender Service, was on the brief, amicus curiae. Before WASHINGTON, Chief Judge, and RUIZ, REID, GLICKMAN, KRAMER, BLACKBURNE- RIGSBY, THOMPSON, and OBERLY, Associate Judges.* GLICKMAN, Associate Judge. After a jury trial, appellant Novel Hinton was convicted of one count of possessing a controlled substance, phencyclidine (PCP), with the intent to distribute in a drug-free zone.1 Midway through Hinton’s trial, over his objection, the court invoked its power under Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 24 (c) to remove a member of the jury, Juror 8, * Associate Judge FISHER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 1 Hinton also was charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana; that count was tried to the judge.
    [Show full text]
  • Off on a Technicality: the Proper Remedy for Improper Venue
    SMU Law Review Volume 73 Issue 3 Article 13 2020 Off on a Technicality: The Proper Remedy for Improper Venue Chris Thomson [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Chris Thomson, Comment, Off on a Technicality: The Proper Remedy for Improper Venue, 73 SMU L. REV. 667 (2020) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol73/iss3/13 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. OFF ON A TECHNICALITY: THE PROPER REMEDY FOR IMPROPER VENUE Christopher Thomson* ABSTRACT Since its introduction to the public discourse, lawyers have admonished the pejorative phrase, “off on a technicality”—and rightfully so. However, the phrase may rightfully find application to the law’s present treatment of criminal defendants who have been convicted in improper venues. Al- though venue is a constitutionally necessary component of all criminal prosecutions, it does not speak to the factual guilt or innocence of a defen- dant. Nevertheless, in the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, defendants whose con- victions stem from improper venue may be acquitted despite a jury’s finding that they committed each substantive element of the underlying of- fense. By contrast, the Sixth and Ninth Circuits remedy these same im- proper venue convictions by dismissing cases without prejudice, allowing for a second prosecution of the accused. Under the Ninth Circuit’s ap- proach, the government’s subsequent prosecution is uninhibited—allowing prosecutors the opportunity to prove venue in the same district where the initial prosecution failed.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief History of the Criminal Jury in the United States Albert W
    A Brief History of the Criminal Jury in the United States Albert W. Alschulert Andrew G. Deisstt Although the history of the criminal jury in England has been the subject of extensive and impressive scholarship,' and although the colonial American jury has attracted notable schol- arly attention as well,2 the history of the criminal jury in the t Wilson-Dickinson Professor, The University of Chicago Law School. Professor Alschuler presented an early version of this paper at a symposium on the Bicentennial of the Bill of Rights at Valparaiso University. He is grateful to the organizers of this sym- posium and especially to Dean Edward M. Gaffney for prompting, encouraging, and sup- porting this study. Professor Alschuler also acknowledges the research support of the Rus- sell J. Parsons Faculty Research Fund, the Arnold and Frieda Shure Research Fund, the Leonard Sorkin Faculty Fund, the Sonnenschein Fund, and the Barbara J. and B. Mark Fried Dean's Discretionary Fund. Both Professor Alschuler and Mr. Deiss are grateful for the comments of Markus D. Dubber, Richard H. Helmholz, Linda K. Kerber, John H. Langbein, Michael W. McConnell, Richard J. Ross, and Stephen J. Schulhofer and also for the outstanding work of the editors and citecheckers of The University of Chicago Law Re- view. if Doctoral Student in History and J.D. Candidate 1995, The University of Chicago. 1 See J. S. Cockburn and Thomas A. Green, eds, Twelve Good Men and True: The Criminal Trial Jury in England, 1200-1800 (Princeton, 1988); Thomas Andrew Green, Verdict According to Conscience: Perspectives on the English Criminal Trial Jury 1200- 1800 (Chicago, 1985); R.
    [Show full text]