Better him than me
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
This is just a very bizarre story all around. An Illinois man filed a post-conviction motion seeking to have his conviction vacated because of juror misconduct. Charles Campbell was convicted in 1992. One of the jurors in his trial, Robert Taylor, was called to jury duty again in 2002. During voir dire in 2002, he stated that he could not be on the jury, because he still felt guilty about what he did to Campbell back in 1992.
What he did was acquiesce to the other jurors and voted for a conviction even though he felt that the State had not met its burden. He, along with two other holdouts, had caved in and convicted Campbell.
Based on this, Campbell’s attorney filed a post-conviction motion. Taylor showed up to testify. The judge told him that he could face criminal charges for juror misconduct. Yeah, in essence, the man was threatened with prosecution. He did what any sane person would do: shut the hell up.
[Ninth Circuit Judge] Stewart then told the juror there was a possibility of criminal charges being filed against him for jury misconduct depending on his potential testimony. Stewart warned any of his testimony Tuesday may be held against him and advised him of his right to remain silent. “To me, it was not that big of deal,” Taylor said. “I was taught that right always wins. But if it is going to incriminate me, I’m not going to say anything more. Sorry.” Taylor was then dismissed.
I am the only one appalled by this? He faces criminal charges because on a jury 10 years ago he acquiesced? Should we permit this? Whither justice? I understand that we want to prevent juries being influenced or relying on information not in the record, but this? So a man, who may not have been convicted if three jurors hadn’t “given up”, cannot get testimony from the jurors.
I do not understand what the misconduct was on the part of this juror. If the rule is that juries are not permitted to call into doubt the veracity of their verdict by testimony or affidavit, then that rule needs to be re-examined. It seems to me that it serves no purpose other than to protect erroneous verdicts.
H/T: EvidenceProf
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
Gideon, we don’t, years later, allow some juror to impeach a verdict because he felt, for whatever reason, to go along with the majority. While I think that the guy shouldn’t be threatened with prosecution, this whole exercise seems pointless. The criminal should stay in jail, and the court shouldn’t have even wasted its time.