DOCSLIB.ORG

Page 79 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Rule 18

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Page 79 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Rule 18 Page 79 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Rule 18 321] which provides that each United States magistrate Trials—Useful Techniques, 29 F.R.D. 436 (1962); Hand- appointed under section 631 of title 28, United States book of Recommended Procedures for the Trial of Pro- Code, shall be known as a United States magistrate tracted Cases, 25 F.R.D. 399–403, 468–470 (1960). Cf. judge. Mo.Sup.Ct. Rule 25.09; Rules Governing the N.J. Courts, § 3:5–3. 1975 AMENDMENT The rule is cast in broad language so as to accommo- Subd. (f)(2). Pub. L. 94–64 amended par. (2) generally. date all types of pretrial conferences. As the third sen- tence suggests, in some cases it may be desirable or EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1979 AMENDMENT necessary to have the defendant present. See Commit- Amendment of this rule by addition of subd. (h) by tee on Pretrial Procedure of the Judicial Conference of order of the United States Supreme Court of Apr. 30, the United States, Recommended Procedures in Crimi- 1979, effective Dec. 1, 1980, see section 1(1) of Pub. L. nal Pretrials, 37 F.R.D. 95 (1965). 96–42, July 31, 1979, 93 Stat. 326, set out as a note under NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1987 section 3771 of this title. AMENDMENT EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENTS PROPOSED APRIL 22, The amendments are technical. No substantive 1974; EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1975 AMENDMENTS change is intended. Amendments of this rule embraced in the order of the V. VENUE United States Supreme Court on Apr. 22, 1974, and the amendments of this rule made by section 3 of Pub. L. Rule 18. Place of Prosecution and Trial 94–64, effective Dec. 1, 1975, see section 2 of Pub. L. 94–64, set out as a note under rule 4 of these rules. Except as otherwise permitted by statute or by these rules, the prosecution shall be had in a SUPERSEDURE district in which the offense was committed. Provision of subd. (d) of this rule that witness shall The court shall fix the place of trial within the be tendered the fee for 1 day’s attendance and mileage district with due regard to the convenience of allowed by law as superseded by section 1825 of Title 28, the defendant and the witnesses and the prompt Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, see such section and administration of justice. Reviser’s Note thereunder. (As amended Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Apr. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30, 1979, eff. Aug. 1, 1979.) Subpoena, see rule 45, Title 28, Appendix, Judiciary NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1944 and Judicial Procedure. 1. The Constitution of the United States, Article III. CROSS REFERENCES Section 2, Paragraph 3, provides: Demands for production of statements and reports of The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeach- witnesses, see section 3500 of this title. ment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in Deposition of witnesses, see rule 15. the State where the said Crimes shall have been com- Marshal’s fee for service of subpoena, see section 1921 mitted; but when not committed within any State, the of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress Per diem and mileage of witnesses generally, see sec- may by Law have directed. tion 1821 of Title 28. Amendment VI provides: Rule 17.1. Pretrial Conference In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial At any time after the filing of the indictment jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall or information the court upon motion of any have been committed, which district shall have been party or upon its own motion may order one or previously ascertained by law * * * more conferences to consider such matters as 28 U.S.C. former § 114 (now §§ 1393, 1441) provides: will promote a fair and expeditious trial. At the All prosecutions for crimes or offenses shall be had conclusion of a conference the court shall pre- within the division of such districts where the same pare and file a memorandum of the matters were committed, unless the court, or the judge thereof, agreed upon. No admissions made by the defend- upon the application of the defendant, shall order the cause to be transferred for prosecution to another divi- ant or the defendant’s attorney at the con- sion of the district. ference shall be used against the defendant un- The word ‘‘prosecutions,’’ as used in this statute, does less the admissions are reduced to writing and not include the finding and return of an indictment. signed by the defendant and the defendant’s at- The prevailing practice of impaneling a grand jury for torney. This rule shall not be invoked in the the entire district at a session in some division and of case of a defendant who is not represented by distributing the indictments among the divisions in counsel. which the offenses were committed is deemed proper and legal, Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U.S. 224, 237. The court (Added Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; amended stated that this practice is ‘‘attended with real advan- Mar. 9, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987.) tages.’’ The rule is a restatement of existing law and is intended to sanction the continuance of this practice. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1966 For this reason, the rule requires that only the trial be This new rule establishes a basis for pretrial con- held in the division in which the offense was committed ferences with counsel for the parties in criminal cases and permits other proceedings to be had elsewhere in within the discretion of the court. Pretrial conferences the same district. are now being utilized to some extent even in the ab- 2. Within the framework of the foregoing constitu- sence of a rule. See, generally, Brewster, Criminal Pre- tional provisions and the provisions of the general stat- Trials—Useful Techniques, 29 F.R.D. 442 (1962); Estes, ute, 28 U.S.C. 114 [now 1393, 1441], supra, numerous stat- Pre-Trial Conferences in Criminal Cases, 23 F.R.D. 560 utes have been enacted to regulate the venue of crimi- (1959); Kaufman, Pre-Trial in Criminal Cases, 23 F.R.D. nal proceedings, particularly in respect to continuing 551 (1959); Kaufman, Pre-Trial in Criminal Cases, 42 offenses and offenses consisting of several transactions J.Am.Jud.Soc. 150 (1959); Kaufman, The Appalachian occurring in different districts. Armour Packing Co. v. Trial: Further Observations on Pre-Trial in Criminal United States, 209 U.S. 56, 73–77; United States v. Johnson, Cases, 44 J.Am.Jud.Soc. 53 (1960); West, Criminal Pre- 323 U.S. 273. These special venue provisions are not af- Rule 18 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 80 fected by the rule. Among these statutes are the follow- Section 103 [now 18 U.S.C. 3237] (Offenses begun in one ing: district and completed in another) Section 121 [now 18 U.S.C. 3240] (Creation of new dis- U.S.C., Title 8: trict or division) Section 138 [see 1326, 1328, 1329] (Importation of aliens for immoral purposes; attempt to reenter after U.S.C., Title 47: deportation; penalty) Section 33 (Submarine Cables; jurisdiction and venue of actions and offenses) U.S.C., Title 15: Section 505 (Special Provisions Relating to Radio; Section 78aa (Regulation of Securities Exchanges; ju- venue of trials) risdiction of offenses and suits) U.S.C., Title 49: Section 79y (Control of Public Utility Holding Com- Section 41 [now 11902, 11903, 11915, 11916] (Legislation panies; jurisdiction of offenses and suits) Supplementary to Interstate Commerce Act; li- Section 80a–43 (Investment Companies; jurisdiction of ability of corporation carriers and agents; of- offenses and suits) Section 80b–14 (Investment Advisers; jurisdiction of fenses and penalties—(1) Liability of corpora- offenses and suits) tion common carriers; offenses; penalties; Juris- Section 298 (Falsely Stamped Gold or Silver, etc., vio- diction) Section 623 [repealed] (Civil Aeronautics Act; venue lations of law; penalty; jurisdiction of prosecu- and prosecution of offenses) tions) Section 715i (Interstate Transportation of Petroleum NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1966 Products; restraining violations; civil and AMENDMENT criminal proceedings; jurisdiction of District The amendment eliminates the requirement that the Courts; review) prosecution shall be in a division in which the offense Section 717u (Natural Gas Act; jurisdiction of of- was committed and vests discretion in the court to fix fenses; enforcement of liabilities and duties) the place of trial at any place within the district with U.S.C., Title 18: due regard to the convenience of the defendant and his Section 39 [now 5, 3241] (Enforcement of neutrality; witnesses. United States defined; jurisdiction of offenses; The Sixth Amendment provides that the defendant prior offenses; partial invalidity of provisions) shall have the right to a trial ‘‘by an impartial jury of Section 336 [now 1302] (Lottery, or gift enterprise cir- the State and district wherein the crime shall have culars not mailable; place of trial) been committed, which district shall have been pre- Section 338a [now 876, 3239] (Mailing threatening com- viously ascertained by law. * * *’’ There is no constitu- munications) tional right to trial within a division. See United States Section 338b [now 877, 3239] (Same; mailing in foreign v. Anderson, 328 U.S. 699, 704, 705 (1946); Barrett v. United country for delivery in the United States) States, 169 U.S. 218 (1898); Lafoon v. United States, 250 Section 345 [now 1717] (Using or attempting to use F.2d 958 (5th Cir.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Venue: an Abridged Legal Analysis of Where a Federal Crime May Be Tried
    Venue: An Abridged Legal Analysis of Where a Federal Crime May Be Tried Updated December 6, 2018 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RS22361 Venue: An Abridged Legal Analysis of Where a Federal Crime May Be Tried Summary The United States Constitution assures those charged with a serious federal crime that they will be prosecuted in the state and district in which the crime occurred. A crime occurs in any district in which any of its “conduct” elements are committed. Some offenses are committed entirely within a single district; there they may be tried. Other crimes have elements that have occurred in more than one district. Still other crimes have been committed overseas and so have occurred outside any district. Statutory provisions, court rules, and judicial interpretations implement the Constitution’s requirements and dictate where multi-district crimes or overseas crimes may be tried. Most litigation involves either a question of whether the government’s selection of venue in a multi-district case is proper or whether the court should grant the accused’s request for a change of venue. The government bears the burden of establishing venue by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant may waive trial in a proper venue either explicitly or by failing to object to prosecution in an improper venue in a timely manner. Section 3237 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code supplies three general rules for venue in multi-district cases. Tax cases may be tried where the taxpayer resides. Mail and interstate commerce offenses may be tried in any district traversed during the course of a particular crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Recusation of Federal Judges
    Buffalo Law Review Volume 17 Number 3 Article 11 4-1-1968 Recusation of Federal Judges Lester B. Orfield Indiana University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview Part of the Civil Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Lester B. Orfield, Recusation of Federal Judges, 17 Buff. L. Rev. 799 (1968). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol17/iss3/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECUSATION OF FEDERAL JUDGES LESTER B. O1m~rLD* CHANGE or VENUE DISTINGUISHE RECUSATION refers to disqualification of a judge and is to be sharply dis- tinguished from change of venue which as to criminal cases is governed by Rules 20 through 22 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It is a misuse of terms to say that the venue is changed when the trial is had in the court where the suit was brought and some other than the regular judge is called in to preside on the trial, in the very court in which the record has all the while remained.' DE FACTO JUDGE DISTINGUISHED The actions of a de facto judge, so far as they affect third persons, are not open to question.2 THE CommoN LAW RULE At common law the major causes for disqualification of a judge were "sub- stantial or direct interest in the event of the litigation, or close ties of blood or affinity ...
    [Show full text]
  • 1 in the Iowa District Court in and for Muscatine County
    E-FILED 2018 MAR 19 11:53 AM MUSCATINE - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR MUSCATINE COUNTY LAURIE FREEMAN, SHARON MOCKMORE, BECCY BOYSEL, GARY D. Case No. LACV021232 BOYSEL, LINDA L. GOREHAM, GARY R. GOREHAM, KELCEY BRACKETT, and BOBBIE LYNN WEATHERMAN RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR CHANGE OF v. VENUE GRAIN PROCESSING CORPORATION, Defendant. On December 15, 2017, Plaintiffs, the Freeman Class, by and through their counsel, filed their Motion for Change of Venue. In brief, Plaintiffs claim that they cannot receive a fair trial in Muscatine County due to pervasive bias against the Freeman Class and undue influence possessed by the Defendant, Grain Processing Corporation (“GPC”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the Court transfer venue for trial pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.801(3). GPC filed its Resistance on January 31, 2018, to which Plaintiffs replied on February 12, 2018. The Plaintiffs’ Motion came before the Court for oral argument in a hearing held on February 14, 2018. Plaintiffs were represented by Attorneys James Larew, Sara Siskind, and Scott Entin. GPC was represented by Attorneys Kelsey Knowles, Eric Knoernschild, and John Kuhl. The Court, having considered the written and oral arguments of counsel for both sides, and the applicable law, enters the following ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Change of Venue. 1 E-FILED 2018 MAR 19 11:53 AM MUSCATINE - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT Factual Background and Proceedings GPC is a large business located in Muscatine County. Along with its parent company, the Kent Corporation, it employs over 1,000 Muscatine residents.1 GPC is a major economic force to the Muscatine area, spending an estimated $1 million per day in local and state economies and reporting more than $1 billion in sales.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Two Ideals of Jury Deliberation Jeffrey Abramson [email protected]
    University of Chicago Legal Forum Volume 1998 | Issue 1 Article 6 Two Ideals of Jury Deliberation Jeffrey Abramson [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf Recommended Citation Abramson, Jeffrey () "Two Ideals of Jury Deliberation," University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 1998: Iss. 1, Article 6. Available at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1998/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Chicago Legal Forum by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Two Ideals of Jury Deliberation Jeffrey Abramsont Several recent works of political theory have put forward a model of democracy that gives deliberation, and popular participation in deliberation, a central place in resolving moral disagreements among citizens.' Rather than shunting moral disputes as irresolvable or leaving their solution to the courts, theorists of democratic deliberation have argued that disputes over fundamental moral values have a place in politics and that citizens motivated by mutual respect toward their opponents or similar constraints can reason publicly to attain justifiable conclusions. As philosophers Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson put it, the "core idea" behind deliberative democracy is simple: even "when citizens or their representatives disagree morally, they should continue to reason together to reach mutually acceptable decisions." 2 When asked to give a practical example of such deliberation, deliberative democracy theorists often cite the jury as an institution that embodies the ideal of using collective reasoned discussion to attain a common verdict.
    [Show full text]
  • Parallel Litigation
    Texas A&M University School of Law Texas A&M Law Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 1-1999 Parallel Litigation James P. George Texas A&M University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation James P. George, Parallel Litigation, 51 Baylor L. Rev. 769 (1999). Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/427 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PARALLEL LITIGATION' James P. George- TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PARALLEL LAWSUITS--AN OVERVIEW ............................................... 773 A. ParallelLitigation Defined and Distinguished............................ 773 B. The Milieu--FourDistinct Settings for ParallelLitigation .......... 776 C. The Remedies: Five Responses to ParallelLitigation ................. 777 1. Do Nothing ............................................................................. 777 2. Transfer and Consolidation .................................................... 777 3. Dismissals and Stays (and Abatements) ............................... 778 4. Antisuit Injunctions ................................................................ 780 D. The Common Doctrines: Six Themes in ParallelLitigation ....... 782 1. The First-Filed Case ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Civil Procedure Ernest E
    SMU Law Review Volume 46 Article 6 Issue 4 Annual Survey of Texas Law 1993 Texas Civil Procedure Ernest E. Figari Jr. A. Erin Dwyer Donald Colleluori Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Ernest E. Figari Jr., et al., Texas Civil Procedure, 46 SMU L. Rev. 1055 (1993) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol46/iss4/6 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. TEXAS CIVIL PROCEDURE Ernest E. Figari,Jr.* A. Erin Dwyer** Donald Colleluori*** HE major developments in the field of civil procedure during the Sur- vey period occurred through judicial decisions. I. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON The reach of the Texas long-arm statute' continues to be the subject of judicial measurement. The statute authorizes the exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident when the nonresident is doing business in Texas. 2 Doing business includes a situation where a nonresident "contracts by mail or otherwise [with a Texas resident] and either party is to perform the contract in whole or in part in this state."' 3 A recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Jones v. Petty-Ray Geophysical, Ge- osource, Inc.,4 is instructive where a plaintiff seeks to predicate personal ju- risdiction on a contract basis. In Jones, the plaintiff asserted a claim for the wrongful death of her hus- band, leading to the contention that it arose out of a contract between a French corporation and her husband's employer, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Alabama
    Rel: December 31, 2020 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2020-2021 ____________________ 1190423 ____________________ Ex parte Johnson & Johnson et al. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: DCH Health Care Authority et al. v. Purdue Pharma LP et al.) (Conecuh Circuit Court, 2019-000007) BOLIN, Justice. 1190423 Johnson & Johnson and other pharmaceutical defendants1 in the 1When this petition for a writ of mandamus was filed, the petition was styled "Ex parte Purdue Pharma LP et al." After the underlying case was commenced in the trial court but before the petition was filed, Purdue Pharma and its affiliates declared bankruptcy, and the underlying action against them was automatically stayed. Therefore, Purdue Pharma and its affiliates are not parties to this petition, and this Court has restyled this petition to accurately reflect the parties before it. The petitioners/defendants include Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.; Watson Laboratories, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc.; Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Noramco, Inc.; Abbott Laboratories; Abbott Laboratories Inc.; Allergan Finance, LLC, f/k/a Actavis, Inc., f/k/a Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Allergan Sales, LLC; Allergan USA, Inc.; AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation; H.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Change of Venue in the Federal Courts Under Section 1404-A of the New Judicial Code--Effect on Rights of the Parties Harold J
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 2 | Issue 1 Article 3 1-1950 Change of Venue in the Federal Courts under Section 1404-A of the New Judicial Code--Effect on Rights of the Parties Harold J. Chase Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Harold J. Chase, Change of Venue in the Federal Courts under Section 1404-A of the New Judicial Code--Effect on Rights of the Parties, 2 Hastings L.J. 29 (1950). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol2/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. CHANGE OF VENUE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS UNDER SEC- TION 1404-A OF THE NEW JUDICIAL CODE-EFFECT ON RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES By HARoLD 3. CASE Title 28, U. S. Judicial Code, Section 1404-a-a few questions On September 1, 1948, the new revision of the United States Judicial Code went into effect. Section 1404-a of title 28 of that code was but a very small part of that total revision. Its text is as follows: "For the convenience of parties and-witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." Taking the words in their ordinary meaning the section seems to say quite simply and clearly that, if plaintiff sues defendant in a federal district court which has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, the court may, in the exercise of its discretion, transfer the case to another federal district court where the plaintiff might have brought suit in the first instance.
    [Show full text]
  • Jury Bias: Myth and Reality Callie K
    Ursinus College Digital Commons @ Ursinus College Politics Summer Fellows Student Research 7-22-2016 Jury Bias: Myth and Reality Callie K. Terris Ursinus College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/pol_sum Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons, and the Political Science Commons Click here to let us know how access to this document benefits oy u. Recommended Citation Terris, Callie K., "Jury Bias: Myth and Reality" (2016). Politics Summer Fellows. 3. https://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/pol_sum/3 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at Digital Commons @ Ursinus College. It has been accepted for inclusion in Politics Summer Fellows by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Ursinus College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Jury Bias: Myth and Reality by Callie Terris Mentor: Gerard J. Fitzpatrick Department of Politics Ursinus College Collegeville, PA Submitted on July 22, 2016 as a part of the 2016 Summer Fellows Program 1 I. Introduction At the heart of our justice system is the myth that all people receive an unbiased trial based on the principles of fairness and equality. The symbol of Lady Justice portrays justice as blind and objective, free of any favoritism or bias due to race, gender, or social standing. Bias is defined as a prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair. This definition gives the term a stereotypically negative connotation. One rarely thinks of bias as something positive, but the reality is that it can be.
    [Show full text]
  • Change of Venue in Covid-19 “Hot Spots”
    LINCOLN MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW __________________________________ VOLUME 8 WINTER 2020 ISSUE 1 _____________________________________ CHANGE OF VENUE IN COVID-19 “HOT SPOTS”: CAN CORONAVIRUS RELATED LAWSUITS GET FAIR TRIALS IN LOCATIONS HIT HARDEST BY THE DISEASE? Marc Consalo1 I. INTRODUCTION As our country struggles with returning to normalcy after the difficulties inflicted by the novel coronavirus, COVID- 19, lawsuits are beginning to originate throughout the fifty states, at least in part, from repercussions associated with the outbreak. With companies just starting to reopen their doors, some experts believe that tort lawyers are readying clients to file lawsuits claiming lost wages and medical costs associated 1 Marc Consalo is an associate lecturer at the University of Central Florida in the College of Community Innovation and Education. In the legal studies department, he has taught a variety of classes including trial advocacy and advanced trial advocacy as well as assisted with both the school’s moot court program and mock trial team. He earned his J.D. with Honors from the University of Florida College of Law and his LL.M. with distinction from Stetson Law School in trial advocacy. 230 8 LMU LAW REVIEW 1 (2020) with contracting the disease while in a person’s employment.2 The possibility of wrongful death lawsuits initiating from the cruise ship industry is a valid concern as well. Indeed, an April 23, 2020, Miami Herald article reported at least seventy-six deaths related to the industry.3 The list of potential cases is endless. There are nursing home industry fatalities; employment issues for back pay; commercial real estate leases broken by once-profitable companies; and criminal charges for breaking stay-at-home orders.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Ordered a Change of Venue
    123 Exhibit B to Rosof Affidiavit - Decision and Order of the Honorable Ma^ Ann Brigantti-Hughes in Index No. 302683/07, dated November 29, 2010 SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK RPCEr. .. V COUNTY OF BRO>fX SROUX.CQ{j\-^^'y'. Present: Honorable Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes DEC 21 7019 WALTER GARCIA Plaintiff, DEasrON/ORDER -against- . IndexNo.: 302683/07 CPS 1 REALTY LP. CPS I LLC, CPS 1 REALTY GP LLC, BL-AD PROPERTIES NY LLC,EL-AD 52 LLC, THE EL-AD GROUP LTD„-49 BAST21 LLC, FAIRMOUNT HOTEL management LP and TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF NEW YORK, Defendants. CPS] REALTY LP,CPS 1 LLC,EL-AD PROPERTIES Third-Party Index No.; NY LLC and THE BL-AD GROUP LTD., 84081/09 Third-Party Plafntilfs, -agalnst- NOVA DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. Third-Party Defendant The following papers numbered 1 to 6 read on Third-Party Defendant motion to change venue noticed August 18,2010 duly submitted on the Motion ciendar of October 26,2Q10 of Part lAl5 by stipulation of the parties. Papers Submitted . Numbered Third-Party Defendant's Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support, & Exhibits 1,2,3, Third-Party Defendant's Memorandum ofLaw in Support 4 Plaintiffs Affirmation in Opposition & Exhibits 5,6 Upon the fbregoing papers, the Third-Party Defendant Nova Development Group, Inc. seeks an Order pursuant to CPLR§ 510(1) and 511(b) to change the venue ofthis matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. Background This action is for peraorial injury sustained by PlaintifF on May 2,.2Q06 at the Plaza Hotel located in New York County, New York.
    [Show full text]