DOCSLIB.ORG

THE USE of JUROR TESTIMONY to IMPEACH a JURY VERDICT: the MARYLAND PROBLEM and the FEDERAL SOLUTION by Sean Patrick Casey

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE USE of JUROR TESTIMONY to IMPEACH a JURY VERDICT: the MARYLAND PROBLEM and the FEDERAL SOLUTION by Sean Patrick Casey University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 29 Article 3 Number 1 Fall 1998 1998 The seU of Juror Testimony to Impeach a Jury Verdict: The aM ryland Problem and the Federal Solution Sean Patrick Casey Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Casey, Sean Patrick (1998) "The sU e of Juror Testimony to Impeach a Jury Verdict: The aM ryland Problem and the Federal Solution," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 29 : No. 1 , Article 3. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol29/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Articles THE USE OF JUROR TESTIMONY TO IMPEACH A JURY VERDICT: THE MARYLAND PROBLEM AND THE FEDERAL SOLUTION by Sean Patrick Casey I. INTRODUCTION jury because he would be a great help."8 The only evidence of the non-juror's statements was the In Haley v. Blue Ridge Transfer Co., 1 affidavit.9 The United States Court of Appeals for the independent truckers sued a trucking company ("Blue Fourth Circuit ruled that the trial court correctly Ridge") claiming that Blue Ridge breached a contract admitted the juror's affidavit under Rule 606(b) of the by unfairly assigning favorable trucking routes to Blue Federal Rules of Evidence. 1o Presuming the non­ Ridge employees. On the morning of trial, courthouse juror's comments influenced the jury, the court security guards mistakenly directed a non-juror to the granted Blue Ridge's motion.lI jury room. The non-juror sat with the jury during the If Haley were decided under Maryland law, the first day of trial, listening to the opening statements court's analysis and final ruling would have been quite and the plaintiffs' first witness. The regular jurors different. A Maryland court would deem the affidavit believed the non-juror was a member of the panel. inadmissible under Md. Rule 5-606(b)12 and The error was not spotted initially, because thirteen accompanying case law, because it came directly from jurors had been selected, and the court had excused a juror. 13 The court could only review evidence not one of the thirteen before triaL2 After the first day, the emanating from the jury to determine whether the judge discovered the error and discharged the non­ non-juror's comments affected the verdict. 14 Under juror from further service.3 After a twelve day trial, Md. Rule 5-606, the admissible evidence in Haley was the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs.4 The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, alleging the non-juror prejudiced the verdict. In 8 See id. support of the motion, the defendant offered an 9 See id. at 1535. In Haley, the transcript from the evidentiary affidavit of a regular juror.s In the affidavit, the juror hearing was lost. The court did not address the issue of whether stated that during a recess the non-juror told the entire the non-juror was available to testify at the hearing. ld. jury that he was familiar with the trucking business 10 FED. R. EVID. 606(b). Rule 606 permits juror testimony 6 and knew trucking companies were unfair to truckers. "whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly The non-juror added that regardless of Blue Ridge's brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside influence defense, he would vote against the company. 7 was improperly brought to bear upon any juror." ld. Included in the affidavits was the fact that a female II See infra notes 91-106. juror said, "she was glad this gentleman was on the 12 Md. R. 5-606(b) Inquiry into Validity of Verdict (l )Inquiry into the validity of a verdict, a juror may not testify as to (A) any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations, (B) the effect of anything upon that or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent I 802 F.2d 1532 (4th Cir. 1986). or dissent from the verdict, or (C) the juror's mental processes in connection with the verdict. 2 See id. at 1534. (2)A juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror 3 See id. concerning a matter about which the juror would be precluded 4 See id. from testifying may not be received for these purposes. S See id. 13 See infra note 53. 6 See id. 14 See Harford Sands, Inc. v. Groft, 320 Md. 136, 145, 577 A.2d 7 See id. 7,11(1990). 29.1 U. Bait. L. F. 17 Articles that an individual sat with the jury for one day of a contact,2° dictionaries,21 media coverage,22 and a twelve day trial. I5 myriad of other extrinsic forces have tainted jury Viewing this evidence under Maryland's verdicts. If a competent source of evidence exposing "probability of prejudice" test,16 the court would likely these improprieties cannot be found, a reviewing court deny Blue Ridge's motion for a new trial. The will affirm a corrupted verdict. available evidence would not suggest that the non­ The primary issue in verdict impeachment cases juror held a strong bias against trucking companies, is what evidence a court may consider in determining nor would the court have considered the female juror's the degree of prejudice that was placed on the favorable impression of the non-juror's presence. 17 deliberations of the jury. The purpose of this article is The possibility existed for the non-juror's mere to explain the Maryland and federal approaches to this presence to have influenced the verdict, but it would issue and offer an equitable alternative to Maryland's be unreasonable to conclude that the non-juror strict rule. The article commences with an probably prejudiced the verdict. 18 examination of the historical background and policy In many situations, Maryland's strict rule that a considerations for denying admissibility of jury juror will not be heard to impeach his or her own testimony for verdict impeachment purposes. Next, it verdict, denies litigants a verdict based "solely on discusses the Maryland and federal approaches to this evidence presented" at trial. 19 Improper third party issue. The article closes by proposing that the Court of Appeals of Maryland abandon its hard line doctrine in favor of a balanced rule. The proposed rule 15 The non-juror would be permitted to testify under Md. Rule 5- combines elements of Federal Rule 606(b) with a 606, but the Haley court did not address the issue of the non­ variation of the local rule of the United States District juror's testimony. Court for the Distr"ict of Maryland that generally 16 See Wernsing v. General Motors, Co., 298 Md. 406, 419-20, prohibits attorneys from contacting discharged 470 A.2d 802,809 (1984). 23 Where . the precise extraneous matter is jurors. known but direct evidence as to its effect on the deliberations is not permitted, a sound II. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS balance is struck by a rule which looks to the probability of prejudice from the face of the The tenet that a juror will not be heard to extraneous matter in relation to the circumstances of the particular case. It is the impeach his or her own verdict has its roots in function of the trial judge when ruling on a eighteenth century England. In Vaise v. Delaval,24 a motion for a new trial to evaluate the degree of party offered juror affidavits to prove that after probable prejudice and whether it justifies a reaching an impasse, the jury flipped a coin to new trial. Id. (emphasis added). determine the verdict of the suit.25 Articulating what 17 See Williams v. State, 204 Md. 55, 70, 102 A.2d 714, 721 has become known as Lord Mansfield's Rule, the (1954). In Maryland there has been no deviation from court refused to consider the affidavits. Writing for the rule that what takes place in the jury-room the court, Lord Mansfield stated: ought to be ... known only to the jurors themselves and their testimony cannot be 20 See Kelly v. Huber Baking Co., 145 Md. 321, 125 A. 782 heard to impeach their verdict, whether the (1924). conduct objected to be misbehavior or 21 See Wernsing, 298 Md. at 419,470 A.2d at 809. mistake. !d. 22 See United States v. Rocks, 339 F. Supp. 249 (E.D. Va. 1972). 18 See Wernsing, 298 Md. at 419,470 A.2d at 808. 23 See U.S. DIST. CT. MD. R. 107.16. 19 See James W. Diehm, Impeachment ofJury Verdicts: Tanner v. United States and Beyond, 65 ST. JOHN'S L. REv. 389, 393 24 99 Eng. Rep. 944 (K.B. 1785). (1991). 25 See id. 29.1 U. Bait. L. F. 18 Articles The Court cannot receive such an affidavit The danger is not limited to interrogations by from any of the jurymen themselves, in all defeated litigants. Once a court receives testimony of whom such conduct is a very high from the defeated party, the prevailing party will be misdemeanor, but in every such case the compelled to gather testimony in support of the 3 Court must derive their knowledge from verdict. ! Conflicting testimony will be offered, and some other source: such as from some a race to credible jurors will ensue.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • No Jury Rigging in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: an Analysis of Jury Testimony to Impeach Jury Verdicts
    SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 4, Issue 2 Spring 2009 NO JURY RIGGING IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT: AN ANALYSIS OF JURY TESTIMONY TO IMPEACH JURY VERDICTS ∗ BRIAN W. REIDY Cite as: Brian W. Reidy, No Jury Rigging in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: An Analysis of Jury Testimony to Impeach Jury Verdicts, 4 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REV. 428 (2009), at http://www.kentlaw.edu/7cr/v4-2/reidy.pdf. I. INTRODUCTION Following the conclusion of a federal jury trial, a unique tension exists between the notion of a “fair verdict” and the American legal system’s historical veneration of private jury deliberations. When a litigant alleges that a fair trial was denied after jury deliberations have concluded, the resolution of this allegation directly conflicts with the systemic interest in verdict finality. Few would deny that a losing litigant deserves a new trial if the jury’s verdict was tainted by something external to the protections of the courtroom.1 Conversely, it is well-recognized that, unlike fine wine, steaks, and cheese, lawsuits do not improve with age because as time passes, memories fade, ∗ J.D. candidate, May 2009, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology. Special thank you to both my wife, Lizzie—I am nothing without you—and to my son, Owen—you inspire me every day. I love you both more than you will ever know! 1 James W. Diehm, Impeachment of Jury Verdicts: Tanner v. United States and Beyond, 65 ST. JOHN’S L. REV. 389, 403 (1991) (noting that external influences would include: threats against jurors, outside or erroneous information provided to jurors, or other improper influences).
    [Show full text]
  • Impeachment in Florida
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 6 Issue 1 Article 1 Winter 1978 Impeachment in Florida Frederick B. Karl Marguerite Davis Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Frederick B. Karl & Marguerite Davis, Impeachment in Florida, 6 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 1 (1978) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol6/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 6 WINTER 1978 NUMBER 1 IMPEACHMENT IN FLORIDA FREDERICK B. KARL AND MARGUERITE DAVIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT AUTHORITY ..... 5 II. EFFECTS OF IMPEACHMENT ................... 9 III. GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT .................. 11 IV. IMPEACHMENT FOR ACTS PRIOR TO PRESENT TERM OF OFFICE .................... 30 V. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 39 VI. IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE: THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ..................... ........ 43 VII. IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE: THE SENATE ......... 47 VIII. IMPEACHMENT ALTERNATIVES .................... 51 A. CriminalSanctions .......................... 52 B . Incapacity ........ ... ... ............... 53 C. Ethics Commission ......................... 53 D. Judicial QualificationsCommission ........... 53 E . B ar D iscipline .............................. 54 F. Executive Suspension ........................ 55 IX . C ON CLUSION ................................... 55 X . A PPEN DIX ....... ............................ 59 2 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 6:1 IMPEACHMENT IN FLORIDA FREDERICK B. KARL* AND MARGUERITE DAVIS** What was the practice before this in cases where the chief Magis- trate rendered himself obnoxious? Why recourse was had to assas- sination in wch.
    [Show full text]
  • Jury Misconduct in Texas: Trying the Trier of Fact
    SMU Law Review Volume 34 Issue 5 Article 3 1980 Jury Misconduct in Texas: Trying the Trier of Fact David E. Keltner Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation David E. Keltner, Jury Misconduct in Texas: Trying the Trier of Fact, 34 SW L.J. 1131 (1980) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol34/iss5/3 This Article 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. JURY MISCONDUCT IN TEXAS: TRYING THE TRIER OF FACT by David E.Kellner* T HE problem of jury misconduct has plagued attorneys since the adoption of the Magna Carta. Since that time practitioners, concerned that verdicts be reached fairly, have attacked the outcomes of jury trials on the grounds that the jurors violated their oaths and instructions. In ad- dressing jury misconduct, courts have been caught between two conflicting policies. First, courts recognize that every litigant is entitled to a fair trial, free from preconceived prejudices and outside influence. A juror's mis- conduct can and often does deny this right. On the other hand, the jury's verdict should be certain and final. A subsequent review of the jury's de- liberations results in a trial on a trial. In their struggle to choose between these two policies, Texas courts have created a body of law with peculiar rules, practices, and presumptions governing jury misconduct cases that affect every attorney engaged in litigation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impeachment and Trial of a Former President
    Legal Sidebari The Impeachment and Trial of a Former President January 15, 2021 For the second time in just over a year, the House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald J. Trump. The House previously voted to impeach President Trump on December 18, 2019, and the Senate voted to acquit the President on February 5, 2020. Because the timing of this second impeachment vote is so close to the end of the Trump Administration, it is possible that any resulting Senate trial may not occur until after President Trump leaves office on January 20, 2021. This possibility has prompted the question of whether the Senate can try a former President for conduct that occurred while he was in office. The Constitution’s Impeachment Provisions The Constitution grants Congress authority to impeach and remove the President, Vice President, and other federal “civil Officers” for treason, bribery, or “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Impeachment is one of the various checks and balances created by the Constitution, and it serves as a powerful tool for holding government officers accountable. The impeachment process entails two distinct proceedings carried out by the separate houses of Congress. First, a simple majority of the House impeaches—or formally approves allegations of wrongdoing amounting to an impeachable offense. The second proceeding is an impeachment trial in the Senate. If the Senate votes to convict with a two-thirds majority, the official is removed from office. The Senate also can disqualify an official upon conviction from holding a federal office in the future; according to Senate practice, this vote follows the vote for conviction.
    [Show full text]
  • Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the First Circuit)
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE 2019 REVISIONS TO PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT DISTRICT OF MAINE INTERNET SITE EDITION Updated 6/24/19 by Chief District Judge Nancy Torresen PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Preface to 1998 Edition Citations to Other Pattern Instructions How to Use the Pattern Instructions Part 1—Preliminary Instructions 1.01 Duties of the Jury 1.02 Nature of Indictment; Presumption of Innocence 1.03 Previous Trial 1.04 Preliminary Statement of Elements of Crime 1.05 Evidence; Objections; Rulings; Bench Conferences 1.06 Credibility of Witnesses 1.07 Conduct of the Jury 1.08 Notetaking 1.09 Outline of the Trial Part 2—Instructions Concerning Certain Matters of Evidence 2.01 Stipulations 2.02 Judicial Notice 2.03 Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statement 2.04 Impeachment of Witness Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.05 Impeachment of Defendant's Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.06 Evidence of Defendant's Prior Similar Acts 2.07 Weighing the Testimony of an Expert Witness 2.08 Caution as to Cooperating Witness/Accomplice/Paid Informant 2.09 Use of Tapes and Transcripts 2.10 Flight After Accusation/Consciousness of Guilt 2.11 Statements by Defendant 2.12 Missing Witness 2.13 Spoliation 2.14 Witness (Not the Defendant) Who Takes the Fifth Amendment 2.15 Definition of “Knowingly” 2.16 “Willful Blindness” As a Way of Satisfying “Knowingly” 2.17 Definition of “Willfully” 2.18 Taking a View 2.19 Character Evidence 2.20 Testimony by Defendant
    [Show full text]
  • Filed an Amicus Brief
    RECEIVED by MSC 1/24/2020 11:58:45 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS __________________________ PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE MICHIGAN, FULLY INFORMED JURY ASSOCIATION Plaintiff/Appellee, MSC NO.: 159063 COA NO.: 342424 -vs- CIRCUIT CT. NO.: 17-24073-AR DISTRICT CT. NO.: 15-45978-FY KEITH ERIC WOOD, Defendant/Appellant. _____________________________ AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE FULLY INFORMED JURY ASSOCIATION Submitted by: /s/ Eric Misterovich Eric Misterovich (P73422) Revision Legal, PLLC 8051 Moorsbridge Rd. Portage, MI 49024 (269) 281-3908 [email protected] John Di Giacomo (P73056) Revision Legal, PLLC 444 Cass St., Ste. D Traverse City, Michigan 49684 (231) 714-0100 [email protected] Attorneys for the Fully Informed Jury Association RECEIVED by MSC 1/24/2020 11:58:45 AM TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................................................................................ 1 SUMMARY OF THIS CASE AND THE ARGUMENTS IN THIS BRIEF ................................ 2 ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................................. 3 I. EVEN IF WOOD HAD KNOWINGLY HANDED HIS PAMPHLETS OR ORALLY COMMUNICATED THE IDEAS CONTAINED IN THE PAMPHLETS DIRECTLY TO A KNOWN JUROR, HE WOULD NOT COMMIT THE CRIME OF JURY TAMPERING....... 4 II. MICHIGAN JURIES HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Mississippi
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2015-CA-01886-SCT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA AND HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY v. OLA MAE APPLEWHITE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF AND WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF DOROTHY MAE APPLEWHITE, DECEASED, CEOLA WADE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF AND WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF ANTHONY J. STEWART, DECEASED, AND KENNETH CORDELL CARTER, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF AND WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF CECILIA COOPER, DECEASED DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/13/2015 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ALBERT B. SMITH, III TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: J. COLLINS WOHNER, JR. PHILIP A. DOMINIQUE SARA BAILEY RUSSO ELIZABETH A. WEEKS KEITH W. McDANIEL ROBERT WILLIAM MAXWELL LINDSEY C. MEADOR RALPH EDWIN CHAPMAN JIMMY B. WILKINS C. KENT HANEY DENNIS C. SWEET, III KEVIN CHRISTOPHER NEWSOM THOMAS N. VANDERFORD, JR. WILLIAM O. LUCKETT, JR. COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: COAHOMA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: J. COLLINS WOHNER, JR. MICHAEL JAMES BENTLEY JIMMY B. WILKINS WALTER EDGAR McGOWAN WILLIAM O. LUCKETT, JR. ROBERT WILLIAM MAXWELL ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: RALPH EDWIN CHAPMAN EDUARDO ALBERTO FLECHAS DANA J. SWAN DENNIS C. SWEET, III SARA BAILEY RUSSO NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 03/11/2021 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: EN BANC. RANDOLPH, CHIEF JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. This case arises from a two-car accident in which a Hyundai Excel was traveling southbound on U.S. Highway 61 at a closing speed of 68 to 78 mph and, for reasons unknown, crossed the center line into the oncoming lane of traffic.
    [Show full text]
  • Impeachment and Removal
    Impeachment and Removal Jared P. Cole Legislative Attorney Todd Garvey Legislative Attorney October 29, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44260 Impeachment and Removal Summary The impeachment process provides a mechanism for removal of the President, Vice President, and other “civil Officers of the United States” found to have engaged in “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Constitution places the responsibility and authority to determine whether to impeach an individual in the hands of the House of Representatives. Should a simple majority of the House approve articles of impeachment specifying the grounds upon which the impeachment is based, the matter is then presented to the Senate, to which the Constitution provides the sole power to try an impeachment. A conviction on any one of the articles of impeachment requires the support of a two-thirds majority of the Senators present. Should a conviction occur, the Senate retains limited authority to determine the appropriate punishment. Under the Constitution, the penalty for conviction on an impeachable offense is limited to either removal from office, or removal and prohibition against holding any future offices of “honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Although removal from office would appear to flow automatically from conviction on an article of impeachment, a separate vote is necessary should the Senate deem it appropriate to disqualify the individual convicted from holding future federal offices of public trust. Approval of such a measure requires only the support of a simple majority. Key Takeaways of This Report The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President, Vice President, and other federal “civil officers” upon a determination that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer 2021 Criminal Law Webinar Case
    Phil Dixon [email protected] Jonathan Holbrook [email protected] Brittany Williams [email protected] Summer Criminal Law Webinar June 4, 2021 Cases covered include reported decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and the North Carolina appellate courts decided between December 15, 2020, and May 18, 2021. The summaries were prepared by School of Government faculty and staff. To view all of the summaries, go to the Criminal Case Compendium or the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog. To obtain the summaries automatically by email, sign up for the Criminal Law Listserv. Investigatory Stops and Seizures The application of physical force with intent to restrain a suspect, even if unsuccessful, is a Fourth Amendment seizure Torres v. Madrid, 592 U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 989 (Mar. 25, 2021) (Roberts, C.J.). Law enforcement officers were attempting to serve an arrest warrant early in the morning at an apartment complex in New Mexico. They noticed the plaintiff in the parking lot and realized she was not the subject of the warrant but wished to speak with her. As they approached, the plaintiff entered her car. According to the plaintiff, she did not immediately notice the police approaching (and was admittedly under the influence of methamphetamine). When an officer tried to open her car door to speak with her, she noticed armed men surrounding her car for the first time and drove off, fearing a carjacking. Although not in the path of the vehicle, the officers fired 13 rounds at the car as it drove away. The plaintiff was struck twice in her back but escaped, only to be apprehended the next day.
    [Show full text]
  • Men's Basketball Tickets Sell out Ticketing
    THE The Independent Newspaper Serving Notre Dame and Saint Mary's VOLUME 38: ISSUE 45 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2003 NDSMCOBSERVER.COM Po riner Men's basketball tickets sell out ticketing. "Obviously, as the team By AMANDA MICHAELS student got better, demand increased News Writer considerably." Students arriving at the JACC Ofthe 11,418 seats available in Ticket Office after 1:45 p.m. yes­ the JACC, 3,200 were allocated dies terday were turned away, frus­ for student use - a number trated and fuming, after the "consistent with previous years," By TERESA FRALISH 2,800 men's basketball tickets Fraleigh said. One hundred of Assis1am News Edi1or set aside for student purchase those will be sectioned ofT for the sold out in an unprecedented band, and the rest will be distrib­ ;\ limner Notre Dame student four and a half hours. In a school uted to student athletes on game was found dead in an apparent dominated by football, 10 sales day, as per NCAA rules. suicide in Bloomington, Ind. per minute came as a pleasant In regards to Domers' com­ Saturday moming. and unexpected surprise for ath­ plaints over the 150 ticket allot­ Brian Berg, a former member letic officials. ment to Saint Mary's students of the class of 2004 from "Two years ago, we did not sell and the 30 to Holy Cross, Wheaton, Ind., had a history of out the entire allocation of tick­ Fraleigh said, "The numbers of mental illness and had been ets, and it took a whole day to do tickets given to Saint Mary's and MEGAN DAVISSON!The Observer 1mrolled in a resident treatment so last year," said Jim Fraleigh, Students line up to purchase men's basketball tickets Monday.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutionality of Legislative Supermajority Requirements: a Defense
    The Constitutionality of Legislative Supermajority Requirements: A Defense John 0. McGinnist and Michael B. Rappaporttt INTRODUCTION On the first day of the 104th Congress, the House of Representatives adopted a rule that requires a three-fifths majority of those voting to pass an increase in income tax rates.' This three-fifths rule had been publicized during the 1994 congressional elections as part of the House Republicans' Contract with America. In a recent Open Letter to Congressman Gingrich, seventeen well-known law professors assert that the rule is unconstitutional.3 They argue that requiring a legislative supermajority to enact bills conflicts with the intent of the Framers. They also contend that the rule conflicts with the Constitution's text, because they believe that the Constitution's specific supermajority requirements, such as the requirement for approval of treaties, indicate that simple majority voting is required for the passage of ordinary legislation.4 t Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School. tt Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law. The authors would like to thank Larry Alexander, Akhil Amar, Carl Auerbach, Jay Bybee, David Gray Carlson, Lawrence Cunningham, Neal Devins, John Harrison, Michael Herz, Arthur Jacobson, Gary Lawson, Nelson Lund, Erela Katz Rappaport, Paul Shupack, Stewart Sterk, Eugene Volokh, and Fred Zacharias for their comments and assistance. 1. See RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EFFECTIVE FOR ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS (Jan. 4, 1995) [hereinafter RULES] (House Rule XXI(5)(c)); see also id. House Rule XXI(5)(d) (barring retroactive tax increases). 2. The rule publicized in the Contract with America was actually broader than the one the House enacted.
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas Sentencing Commission Pursuant to A
    Arkansas Sentencing Impact Assessment for HB1454 Commission Sponsored by Representative A. Collins and Senator Bond Subtitle CONCERNING WITNESS, INFORMANT, AND JURY TAMPERING OR INTIMIDATION; AND CONCERNING EVIDENCE TAMPERING. Impact Summary1 Cannot be determined. Change from current law2 Amends Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-53-109, Intimidating a witness, to require that the offense be committed knowingly and to increase the penalty in some circumstances. Currently, the statute is silent as to the intent required for committing the offense and the penalty for intimidating a witness is a Class C felony. Under the proposed bill, the penalty for intimidating a witness is one (1) felony classification lower than the underlying offense for which the witness or person believed to be called as a witness is to be a witness if the offense is a Class B felony or higher felony offense of Homicide (A.C.A. § 5-10-101 et seq.), an attempted homicide, or Rape (A.C.A. § 5-14-103). If otherwise committed, intimidating a witness remains a Class C felony under the proposed bill. Amends A.C.A. § 5-53-110, Tampering, to require that the offense be committed knowingly and to increase the penalty in some circumstances. Currently, the statute is silent as to the intent required for committing the offense and the penalty for tampering is a Class A misdemeanor. Under the proposed bill, tampering is a Class C felony if the person impairs or obstructs the investigation of a felony offense. If otherwise committed, tampering remains a Class A misdemeanor under the proposed bill. Amends A.C.A.
    [Show full text]