DOCSLIB.ORG

Special Verdict Formulation in Wisconsin John A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Special Verdict Formulation in Wisconsin John A Marquette Law Review Volume 60 Article 1 Issue 2 Winter 1977 Special Verdict Formulation in Wisconsin John A. Decker John R. Decker Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation John A. Decker and John R. Decker, Special Verdict Formulation in Wisconsin, 60 Marq. L. Rev. 201 (1977). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol60/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact megan.obrien@marquette.edu. MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW Vol. 60 1977 No. 2 SPECIAL VERDICT FORMULATION IN WISCONSIN JOHN A. DECKER* and JOHN R. DECKER**" CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................... 204 PART I. THE GENERAL STRUCTURE OF THE SPECIAL VER- DICT .. ............................................ 210 Sec. A. The Sequential Arrangement of the Ques- tions Should Be Logical ................ 210 Sec. B. It May Be Necessary To Inquire About Those Who Are Not Parties to the Litiga- tion .................................. 211 Sec. C. Separate Inquiries About Negligence and Causation Are Proper But Not Required . 213 Sec. D. Where the Law Requires Expert Testi- mony To Establish Negligence or Causa- tion, in the Absence of Such Testimony, a Question Should Not Be Submitted ..... 215 PART II. THE GENERAL EXTENT OF THE SPECIAL VERDICT QUESTIONS ......................................... 216 Sec. A. A Special Verdict Should Not Consist of So Many Questions that It Constitutes Needless Multiplicity or Verbosity or Leads the Jury into Inconsistency ....... 219 * J.D. 1939, University of Wisconsin; Circuit Judge, 2d Judicial Circuit, Milwau- kee, Wisconsin; Lecturer in Law, Marquette University Law School. ** B.A. 1974, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Candidate for J.D., Marquette University Law School; Member and Editor, MARQurr LAw REVIEW. The authors had their first professional association in 1974-75 when one served as intern-law clerk to the other. That relationship was primarily student-teacher. Learn- ing trial practice skills was handicapped by the oral tradition-so much is communica- tion by folk tales in an unorganized fashion. Instruction with respect to special verdict formulation was frustrating to both of us. We concluded that a primary impediment was the lack of written preparatory material. This article resulted. MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 60:201 Sec. B. A Special Verdict Should Not Constitute an Extended Cross-Examination of the Jury .................................. 220 Sec. C. Issues Should Be Neither Split, nor Sub- divided nor Repeated in Different Form . 220 Sec. D. Issues Submitted Should Not Be as Broad as a General Verdict ................... 220 Sec. E. Only Issues Pleaded (or Actually Tried) and Supported By Evidence Sufficient To Support An Affirmative Jury Finding Should Be Incorporated in the Question .. 221 Sec. F. Special Verdicts Should Be So Drafted that Judgment in Favor of One Party or the Other May Be Based Upon the Verdict No Matter How the Jury Answers the Ques- tions, So Long as the Answers Are Re- sponsive .............................. 225 Sec. G. Special Questions of "Additional" Fact A re Proper ............................ 225 Sec. H. Multiple Special Verdicts Involving Multi- ple Parties and Separate Incidents May Be Submitted to the Jury ................. 227 Sec. I. Ordinarily the Question Should Be Framed To Put the Burden on the Affirmative ... 228 PART III. THE FORM OF NEGLIGENCE, CAUSATION AND COMPARISON INQUIRIES . ............................ 229 Sec. A. Each Question Should Be Limited to a Single Direct and Controverted Ultimate F act .................................. 229 Sec. B. A Double Question, Whether Phrased Conjunctively or Disjunctively, Hazards Reversible Error ....................... 230 Sec. C. When the Claim is Grounded in Neglig- ence, the Preferable Special Verdict Ques- tion is in Terms of Negligence .......... 231 Sec. D. A Question Directed to Conduct of One of the PartiesShould Be Related in Time and Space to the Event Which Is the Basis of the Litigation ......................... 234 Sec. E. In a PersonalInjury Case, When More than One Event or Occurrence Is the Subject of 1977] SPECIAL VERDICT FORMULATION Litigation, Care Must Be Exercised in Phrasing the Negligence and Causation Questions with Respect to "The Acci- dent," "The Collision," "The Plaintiff's Injury" or "The Defendant's Injury." .... 236 Sec. F. A Question Should Not Assume nor Imply a Controverted Fact .................... 241 Sec. G. Questions Should Avoid Duplicity ....... 245 Sec. H. The Jury Instructions May Be Considered in Determining the Propriety of the Spe- cial Verdict Question ................... 250 Sec. L The Form Of the CausationQuestion .... 250 Sec. J. The Form of the Comparative Negligence Question .............................. 252 PART IV. THE MECHANICS OF SPECIAL VERDICT PREPARA- TION .. ............................................ 254 Sec. A. Provision Must Be Made for Dissenting Jurors ................................ 254 Sec. B. Prefatory Instructions to Special Verdict Questions Should Be Included .......... 256 PART V. DAMAGE QUESTIONS .......................... 261 Sec. A. Damage Questions Should Always Be In- cluded in the Verdict if in Issue and the Trial Court Should Insist that the Jury Answer the Damage Questions .......... 261 Sec. B. Submitting a Damage Question Does Not Assume nor Imply the Existence of Dam- age ................................... 262 Sec. C. A Special Fact Causation Question Di- rected to Whether the Claimed Damages Arose from the Occurrence or Event Liti- gated May Be Appropriate .............. 264 Sec. D. The Damage Inquiry Can Be Formulatedin a General Question of Damages or in an Itemized Question of General and Special Dam ages .............................. 264 Sec. E. Phrasing the Itemized Damage Inquiries . 266 Sec. F. An Inquiry with Respect to Exemplary Damages Cannot Be Made Unless the Evi- dence Justifies Submitting an Inquiry for Compensatory Damages ................ 268 MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 60:201 PART VI. THE ROLE OF COUNSEL IN THE INSTRUCTION AND SPECIAL VERDICT CONFERENCE ....................... 269 PART VII. TRIAL COURT SUPERVISION OVER THE RETURN OF THE JURY'S SPECIAL VERDICT ........................ 271 PART VIII. THE ELECTION-OF-THEORIES PROBLEM ....... 273 APPENDICES ......................................... 280 INTRODUCTION The special verdict, viewed today as a means for court con- trol over the jury,' has evolved as a pragmatic response of medi- eval juries to the burdens placed upon them. In early English law the inquest, of which the jury was a constituent part, was a method of proof imported by the Normans and was an alter- native to ordeal, battle and wager of oath.2 The resolutions provided by the latter methods of proof were final, since they were directed by the supernatural. 3 The inquest and the jury were early recognized to be human and fallible institutions, however, and some means of encouraging accuracy and correct- ing error was desired.4 The means developed was the attaint.5 If the inquest jury's verdict was challenged, an attaint jury, a more numerous body composed of as many as twenty-four ju- rors,' was assembled to pass on the verdict of the first jury. If the inquest jury was found to have given a false verdict, the jurors stood convicted of perjury7 and were severely punished,8 1. F. JAMES, CIVIL PROCEDURE § 7.15 (1965). Justices Douglas and Black dissented to the 1963 amendments to FED. R. CIv. PROc. 49 on the ground that special verdicts were a means of excessive judicial control over the jury. See 374 U.S. 865, 867-68 (1963). 2. Morgan, A Brief History of Special Verdicts and Special Interrogatories,32 YALE L.J. 575 (1923). 3. Id. 4. 3 W. BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES *389. 5. A thorough discussion of the origins and development of the attaint as a form of jury control may be found in 1 W. HOLDswoRTH, A HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW 337 et. seq. (3d ed. 1922). 6. Id. at 339. 7. "They supposed that .. the proof of fact must be always so clear, that, if [the jury] found a wrong verdict, they must be wilfully and corruptly perjured." 3 BLACK- STONE, supra note 4, at *389. Attaching the penalty of perjury to the jurors was not illogical. Rendition of a false verdict was tantamount to false swearing since the evolv- ing jury still retained its character as an assemblage of witnesses. See 1 HoLDSWORTH, supra note 4, at 337, 342. 8. "[The jurors] were imprisoned, their lands forfeited, their wives and children turned out of their possessions, and their goods forfeited to the King, and themselves outlawed." 1 HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND 27 (3d ed. 1952). 19771 SPECIAL VERDICT FORMULATION and the inquest judgment was overturned.' The province of the early jury was probably not limited to findings of fact alone.'0 Although questions of both fact and law were commonly submitted for determination by inquest ju- ries," the practice developed in the early thirteenth century for juries to return verdicts in which the facts of the case were determined, but the more difficult determination and applica- tion of the law was left to the court. 2 By this means, the jury could pass responsibility for an erroneous judgment from them- selves to the judges.' 3 Blackstone noted two ways in which a jury might make findings
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Century of Scholarship 1881 – 2004
    A Century of Scholarship 1881 – 2004 Distinguished Scholars Reception Program (Date – TBD) Preface A HUNDRED YEARS OF SCHOLARSHIP AND RESEARCH AT MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY DISTINGUISHED SCHOLARS’ RECEPTION (DATE – TBD) At today’s reception we celebrate the outstanding accomplishments, excluding scholarship and creativity of Marquette remarkable records in many non-scholarly faculty, staff and alumni throughout the pursuits. It is noted that the careers of last century, and we eagerly anticipate the some alumni have been recognized more coming century. From what you read in fully over the years through various this booklet, who can imagine the scope Alumni Association awards. and importance of the work Marquette people will do during the coming hundred Given limitations, it is likely that some years? deserving individuals have been omitted and others have incomplete or incorrect In addition, this gathering honors the citations in the program listing. Apologies recipient of the Lawrence G. Haggerty are extended to anyone whose work has Faculty Award for Research Excellence, not been properly recognized; just as as well as recognizing the prestigious prize scholarship is a work always in progress, and the man for whom it is named. so is the compilation of a list like the one Presented for the first time in the year that follows. To improve the 2000, the award has come to be regarded completeness and correctness of the as a distinguishing mark of faculty listing, you are invited to submit to the excellence in research and scholarship. Graduate School the names of individuals and titles of works and honors that have This program lists much of the published been omitted or wrongly cited so that scholarship, grant awards, and major additions and changes can be made to the honors and distinctions among database.
    [Show full text]
  • State Autonomous Vehicle Legislation and the Road to a National Regime Andrew Swanson Andrew.Swanson@Marquette.Edu
    Marquette Law Review Volume 97 Article 8 Issue 4 Summer 2014 “Somebody Grab the Wheel!”: State Autonomous Vehicle Legislation and the Road to a National Regime Andrew Swanson andrew.swanson@marquette.edu Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Transportation Law Commons Repository Citation Andrew Swanson, “Somebody Grab the Wheel!”: State Autonomous Vehicle Legislation and the Road to a National Regime, 97 Marq. L. Rev. 1085 (2014). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol97/iss4/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact megan.obrien@marquette.edu. SWANSON-FINAL (7-2-14) (DO NOT DELETE) 7/2/2014 5:49 PM “SOMEBODY GRAB THE WHEEL!”: STATE AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE LEGISLATION AND THE ROAD TO A NATIONAL REGIME This Comment critically analyzes bills, statutes, and regulations that govern the use of autonomous vehicles. Autonomous vehicles, also known as self-driving cars, represent the future of personal transportation. States have begun to regulate the testing and implantation of this technology onto public highways, and the federal government has suggested baseline regulations for states to consider when proposing future legislation. First, this Comment provides a brief overview of autonomous vehicle technology, as well as the pros and cons of a self- driving vehicle. Second, this Comment analyzes both enacted and proposed legislation at the state level. This Comment then recommends various provisions that states should implement in future legislation and cautions against the inclusion of various provisions that will impede the implementation of autonomous vehicle technology.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDICES to PETITION for WRIT of CERTIORARI Appendix A: Opinion and Order Affirming Conviction and Death Sentence, Louisiana S
    *** CAPITAL CASE *** No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DACARIUS HOLLIDAY, Petitioner, v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT APPENDICES TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Appendix A: Opinion and Order Affirming Conviction and Death Sentence, Louisiana Supreme Court, January 29, 2020 State v. Holliday, 2017-01921 (La. 1/29/20) Appendix B: Order Denying Rehearing, Louisiana Supreme Court April 09, 2020, State v. Holliday, 2017-01921 (La. 04/09/20); 2020 La. LEXIS 679 State v. Holliday Supreme Court of Louisiana January 29, 2020, Decided No. 2017-KA-01921 Reporter 2020 La. LEXIS 228 *; 2017-01921 (La. 01/29/20);; 2020 WL 500475 [Pg 1] CRICHTON, J.* STATE OF LOUISIANA VS. DACARIUS HOLLIDAY On June 27, 2007, a grand jury indicted defendant Dacarius Holliday ("defendant") for the first-degree murder of two-year-old Darian Coon. On March 14, Notice: THIS DECISION IS NOT FINAL UNTIL 2010, a unanimous jury found defendant guilty as EXPIRATION OF THE FOURTEEN DAY REHEARING charged. On March 17, 2010, the jury unanimously PERIOD. determined that defendant be sentenced to death, finding the following aggravating circumstances proven beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the offender was engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of second-degree cruelty to juveniles; and (2) the victim Subsequent History: Rehearing denied by State v. was under the age of twelve (12) years. See La. R.S. Holliday, 2020 La. LEXIS 679 (La., Apr. 9, 2020) 14:30 (A)(1) and (5) and La. R.S. 14:93.2.3. This is defendant's direct appeal pursuant to La.
    [Show full text]
  • Pullman Company Archives
    PULLMAN COMPANY ARCHIVES THE NEWBERRY LIBRARY Guide to the Pullman Company Archives by Martha T. Briggs and Cynthia H. Peters Funded in Part by a Grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities Chicago The Newberry Library 1995 ISBN 0-911028-55-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................. v - xii ... Access Statement ............................................ xiii Record Group Structure ..................................... xiv-xx Record Group No . 01 President .............................................. 1 - 42 Subgroup No . 01 Office of the President ...................... 2 - 34 Subgroup No . 02 Office of the Vice President .................. 35 - 39 Subgroup No . 03 Personal Papers ......................... 40 - 42 Record Group No . 02 Secretary and Treasurer ........................................ 43 - 153 Subgroup No . 01 Office of the Secretary and Treasurer ............ 44 - 151 Subgroup No . 02 Personal Papers ........................... 152 - 153 Record Group No . 03 Office of Finance and Accounts .................................. 155 - 197 Subgroup No . 01 Vice President and Comptroller . 156 - 158 Subgroup No. 02 General Auditor ............................ 159 - 191 Subgroup No . 03 Auditor of Disbursements ........................ 192 Subgroup No . 04 Auditor of Receipts ......................... 193 - 197 Record Group No . 04 Law Department ........................................ 199 - 237 Subgroup No . 01 General Counsel .......................... 200 - 225 Subgroup No . 02
    [Show full text]
  • Criminalizing Match-Fixing As America Legalizes Sports Gambling
    Marquette Sports Law Review Volume 31 Issue 1 Fall Article 2 2020 Criminalizing Match-Fixing as America Legalizes Sports Gambling Jodi S. Balsam Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons Repository Citation Jodi S. Balsam, Criminalizing Match-Fixing as America Legalizes Sports Gambling, 31 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 1 () Available at: https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw/vol31/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact megan.obrien@marquette.edu. BALSAM – ARTICLE 31.1 12/17/2020 8:47 PM ARTICLES CRIMINALIZING MATCH-FIXING AS AMERICA LEGALIZES SPORTS GAMBLING JODI S. BALSAM INTRODUCTION1 In May 2018, the Supreme Court decided Murphy v. NCAA,2 striking down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) that prohibited states from allowing sports betting.3 At this writing, more than two years after PASPA’s judicial repeal, eighteen states have enacted legal sports betting, five states plus Washington, D.C. have passed legislation that is pending launch, and twenty-four more have introduced sports gambling bills.4 Somewhat myopically, these legislative efforts fail to address the game integrity concerns flagged by the sports leagues and other entities that create the contests on which Associate Professor of Clinical Law, Director of Externship Programs, Brooklyn Law School. I received excellent research assistance from Nick Rybarczyk, Matthew Schechter, Madison Smiley, and Katherine Wilcox. Thank you to Daniel Wallach and to participants in the Brooklyn Law School Faculty Workshop for their time and helpful comments and suggestions.
    [Show full text]
  • Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief
    ,SUPREME COURT COpy F-~: -~--.: --i;- ---},' --; --: -----": -:"; ":i- ".". -i- -j----:~- :.: --:- :~- --.-~;~: --.- ~-.--~:. ~·:ri-· {~.~-: -.~~ ----:;-~~- ------": :.:. ~.:}.- ;'-~; -i: -: A"" f ------------------------- _ _ . :THL FLOPLLCf lUI.. S.f.Al.c J-f (.,·JJF..J:>':"''iL·,c; ~ ("< ): .. ..-;.... '.("': t 'uiu:urma,>upreme :" !FhdndffandRespunde.nt, i Court No, 8091915 "';/8" ~ i Los /\ngt~lts Cnunty · 'DANIEL NUNEZ and \\/I.CLLArA TupnA. I Sup-ed/H' Court ·No. is,ATl:LE lNAG3935B andAppen",~t5, l)etbl1d""ls I : ..l. ~" ..~_ ~~~ ..~~....; APPELLANT' \VILLIAJvl'TUPL;A SA1'ELE'S E.EP.LV BRIEF /\FFC/\LI:;FtCHvlTIIE SIJPERIOR COCTRT' OF IJJS ANGELES COTINT"'{ "rUE HONOR./\BI.E 'TOMSON 'f. ONG·, PRESIDING David l1, Chxxhvin. State Bar #91476 PJ} BOK 93579 9(H)9j~t6{(9· ....r 'n'"'~"., •./},'t.,n':::-?'"-:."o ""'l<>s\.:.'~~'~ c·:>.... (;,; .,~ .:. ".•~.;.;.," ) (323) 666~9960 .Attnnlt\·~~,ibr anpdhmt \ViUim:nTul;ua. Satdc TABLE OF CONTENTS APPELLANT WILLIAM TUPUA SATELE'S REPLY BRIEF 1 ARGUMffiNTS 2 GUlLT PHASE ISSUES 2 I THE FINDING BY THE JURY AND THE TRIAL COURT THAT BOTH APPELLANTS PERSONALLY FIRED THE WEAPON WAS A FACTUAL INCONSISTENCY THAT DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A RELIABLE DETERMINATION OF THE FACTS IN A CAPITAL CASE, THEREBY REQUIRING A REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT AND DEATH PENALTY VERDICT 2 A. Introductory Statement 2 B. Respondent Mischaracterizes This Issue. 3 C. Respondent Fails To Understand The Origins OfThe Error. 5 D. The Evidence Overwhelmingly Establishes The Fact That Only One Person Fired The Gun. 7 1. Respondent Should Be Estopped From Presenting The Argument That Both Appellant And Nunez Were The Actual Shooters 7 2. It Is Highly Improbable That More Than One Defendant Fired The Weapon 9 3."Factual Impossibility" Is Not A Proper Standard To Be Utilized In Reviewing A Death Penalty Case.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan's Railroad History
    Contributing Organizations The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) wishes to thank the many railroad historical organizations and individuals who contributed to the development of this document, which will update continually. Ann Arbor Railroad Technical and Historical Association Blue Water Michigan Chapter-National Railway Historical Society Detroit People Mover Detroit Public Library Grand Trunk Western Historical Society HistoricDetroit.org Huron Valley Railroad Historical Society Lansing Model Railroad Club Michigan Roundtable, The Lexington Group in Transportation History Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers Michigan Railroads Association Peaker Services, Inc. - Brighton, Michigan Michigan Railroad History Museum - Durand, Michigan The Michigan Railroad Club The Michigan State Trust for Railroad Preservation The Southern Michigan Railroad Society S O October 13, 2014 Dear Michigan Residents: For more than 180 years, Michigan’s railroads have played a major role in the economic development of the state. This document highlights many important events that have occurred in the evolution of railroad transportation in Michigan. This document was originally published to help celebrate Michigan’s 150th birthday in 1987. A number of organizations and individuals contributed to its development at that time. The document has continued to be used by many since that time, so a decision was made to bring it up to date and keep the information current. Consequently, some 28 years later, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has updated the original document and is placing it on our website for all to access. As you journey through this history of railroading in Michigan, may you find the experience both entertaining and beneficial. MDOT is certainly proud of Michigan’s railroad heritage.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division
    Case 3:11-cv-01673-L Document 7 Filed 01/13/12 Page 1 of 18 PageID 114 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION BASSEY JACKSON EKANEM, ) ID # 33575-177, ) Movant, ) vs. ) No. 3:11-CV-1673-L-BH ) No. 3:05-CR-0173-L UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Respondent. ) Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to Special Order 3-251, this case has been automatically referred for findings, conclusions, and recommendation. Based on the relevant filings, evidence and applicable law, the motion to vacate should be DENIED. I. BACKGROUND Federal inmate Bassey Jackson Ekanem (Movant) filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Mot.) under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his federal conviction and sentence in Cause No. 3:05-CR-0173-L. The respondent is the United States of America (Government). A. Factual & Procedural History On February 23, 2006, Movant was charged by superseding indictment with five counts of health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347. (See doc. 38).1 He pled not guilty and was tried before a jury on April 10-21, 2006. According to the trial testimony, movant operated a medical equipment business named Rooster Medical Equipment and Supplies in Fort Worth, Texas. Rooster was an approved durable medical equipment (DME) provider under Medicare. (R. 2:186, 290-91). Movant: 1) supplied patients with scooters but billed Medicare, and was paid, for the more expensive power wheelchairs 1 Unless otherwise noted, all document numbers refer to the docket number assigned in the underlying criminal action.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenging Peremptories: Suggested Reforms to the Jury Selection Process Using Minnesota As a Case Study Maisa Jean Frank
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 2010 Challenging Peremptories: Suggested Reforms to the Jury Selection Process Using Minnesota as a Case Study Maisa Jean Frank Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Frank, Maisa Jean, "Challenging Peremptories: Suggested Reforms to the Jury Selection Process Using Minnesota as a Case Study" (2010). Minnesota Law Review. 518. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/518 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact lenzx009@umn.edu. Note Challenging Peremptories: Suggested Reforms to the Jury Selection Process Using Minnesota as a Case Study Maisa Jean Frank* The right to have a case decided by a fair and impartial group of one's peers receives great reverence in the American judicial system.' When a criminal case goes to trial, one of the first steps of the judicial process is selection of the jury.2 The makeup of the jury can have a large effect (or at least a large perceived effect) on the verdict because of the decisional power juries enjoy.3 Thus, attorneys have an incentive to manipulate the jury to include members who will likely return a favorable verdict for their client. 4 In an adversarial system, when both sides engage in this process, they theoretically produce a bal- anced jury.5 * J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division
    Case 3:09-cv-01499-P Document 12 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID 130 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION BRYAN KEITH WATKINS) ) v. ) 3-09-CV-1499-P ) RICK THALER, Director, ) Texas Department of Criminal Justice ) Correctional Institutions Division ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the District Court in implementation thereof, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Type of Case: This is a petition for habeas corpus relief filed by a state prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Parties: The Petitioner is an inmate confined at the Stringfellow Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division at Rosharon, Texas. Respondent is the Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. Statement of Case: Upon his plea of not guilty to the offense of burglary of a habitation as charged in the indictment returned in No. F-04-73156-T, Watkins was tried by a jury which returned a verdict of guilty and thereafter, having found that he had been convicted of a previous felony offense, assessed his punishment at twenty years imprisonment. He appealed his conviction and on May 16, 2006, the Fifth Court of Appeals at Dallas Case 3:09-cv-01499-P Document 12 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 9 PageID 131 affirmed his conviction in an unpublished opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Memories of My Career at General Motors
    SPECIAL MEMORIES OF MY CAREER AT GENERAL MOTORS JOSEPH M. COLUCCI RETIRED EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GENERAL MOTORS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER JUNE 27, 2017 1 GM RESEACH LABORATORIES JOURNEY FROM DAYTON TO THE GENERAL MOTORS TECHNICAL CENTER 1909 - 1955 Charles F. Kettering’s first laboratory, 1909-1911, in a barn in Dayton, Ohio. This was the birthplace of an improved automotive battery ignition system and the electric self- starter. Charles “Boss” Kettering First home of GM Research Corporation, Moraine City, Ohio, 1921 2 In 1929, GM Research moved to Michigan, in the Argonaut Building on West Milwaukee Avenue in Detroit. In 1955, GM Research moved to the newly established GM Technical Center in Warren, MI. The iconic spiral staircase in the lobby of the GM Research Administration Building Pictures from: “75 YEARS OF INSPIRATION, IMAGINATION AND INNOVATION,” JUNE 1995 3 SPECIAL MEMORIES OF MY CAREER AT GENERAL MOTORS I was blessed to have had an extremely interesting and satisfying career at General Motors, mostly spent in the Fuels and Lubricants Department of the GM Research Laboratories. The people I worked with made it a pleasure to go to work. Their technical accomplishments were outstanding and helped make GM, the auto industry, and the world a better place. Their accomplishments have been documented in “The GMR-GM R&D Fuels and Lubricants Department – Its History and Accomplishment,” SAE Paper 2016-01- 0176, April 4, 2015, and rewarded with the 2017 SAE Arnold W. Siegel Humanitarian Award. In addition to their accomplishments, the people, and others to whom my position gave me access, provided many memorable and often humorous stories that are the basis for this memoir.
    [Show full text]
  • Miller V. United States of America
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Miller v. United States of America On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of appeal for the Tenth Circuit ATTACHMENT A United States v. Miller, 891 F.3d 1220 (2018) 106 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 723 Attorneys and Law Firms 891 F.3d 1220 United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. John C. Arceci, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Virginia L. Grady, Federal Public Defender, with him on UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, the brief), Denver, Colorado, for Defendant–Appellant. v. Joel E. MILLER, a/k/a Joel Edward J. Bishop Grewell, Assistant United States Attorney Miller, Defendant–Appellant. (Robert C. Troyer, Acting United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff– No. 16-1231 Appellee. | FILED June 6, 2018 Before McHUGH, McKAY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. Synopsis Background: Defendant, a former doctor, was convicted Opinion of distributing controlled substance and making false McKAY, Circuit Judge. statement to Drug Enforcement Administration. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Defendant Joel Miller, a former small-town doctor, was No. 1:13–CR–00354–REB–1, Robert E. Blackburn, J., charged with numerous counts of health-care fraud, 2016 WL 1426918, denied defendant's motion for new money laundering, and distributing a controlled substance trial. Defendant appealed. outside the usual course of professional treatment, as well as one count of making a false statement in an application he submitted to the Drug Enforcement Administration. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, McKay, Circuit Judge, The jury acquitted him on all of the financial charges as held that: well as several of the drug-distribution charges, but found him guilty on seven counts of distributing a controlled district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting substance in violation of 21 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]