|
The practice of jury sequestering seems to be more common now than in
the past. Also it appears it is a "United States thing" and is rarely
used in other countries. Could someone direct me to a book/article
that would give a background/history of jury sequestering?
Many thanks in advance.
Bill
|
| |
| |
"Bill M." wrote:
The practice of jury sequestering seems to be . . .
a "United States thing" and is rarely used in other
countries.
The main purpose of sequestering a jury, AFAIK, is to keep the
jury from being influenced by media publicity and/or people the
jurors might come in contact with during the trial, in high-
profile trials where simply instructing the jury to avoid such
exposure might not be sufficient.
In Canada, the traditional solution to this problem has been
to restrict the media. News outlets in Canada, when reporting
a trial in progress, are only permitted to report events that
took place in the presence of the jury. Thus, in theory, a
Canadian juror who does hear or read a news story about the
trial they're serving on won't be exposed to anything they
haven't already seen and heard in the courtroom.
This way of doing things has started to break down in recent
years, due to Canada's proximity to the US, nearly universal
access in Canada to the US media, and a general refusal by US
news people to respect Canadian "censorship" laws. During the
high-profile trials in Ontario, in the 1990's, of a couple
accused in a series of sex/torture-related slayings, court
officials tried valiantly to keep lurid reports from American
TV and newspapers out of public view, but the efforts were
almost totally in vain.
BTW, I believe that trial also marked the first instance of
extensive questioning of prospective jurors in Canada.
Rich Wales richw@richw.org http://www.richw.org
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. My comments are for discussion
purposes only and are not intended to be relied upon as legal or
professional advice.
|
| |
| |
The main purpose of sequestering a jury, AFAIK, is to keep the
jury from being influenced by media publicity and/or people the
jurors might come in contact with during the trial, in high-
profile trials where simply instructing the jury to avoid such
exposure might not be sufficient.
Thanks, Rich!
But I am really interested in the history of sequestering juries here
in the U.S. It seems to me that it has become MUCH more prevalent in
the last 20-30 years than, say, around the turn of the century. What
would make my little heart go pitty-pat would be to find a source that
had something like "during the period of 1890-1910 only X in 100
juries were sequestered, now the number is Y in 100."
Thanks again and if any one has a pointer to the history of
sequestering I would love see it. Google has lead nowhere.
Take care
Bill
|
| |
| |
"Bill M." wrote:
Thanks again and if any one has a pointer to the history of
sequestering I would love see it. Google has lead nowhere.
IIRC, New Hampshire does not sequester juries, and held fast to this
tradition even during its last high-profile trial, that of Pam Smart
in 1991. (Go, seek out Boston Globe or Herald articles to find
that statement, or Manchester Union-Leader or Nashua Telegraph.)
--
- David Chesler <chesler@post.harvard.edu>
Iacta alea est
|
| |
| |
In article <trt4lv41rcg55ki9pt6h7caja3jqeakehq@4ax.com> in
misc.legal.moderated, Bill M. <billm37@yahoo.com> wrote:
But I am really interested in the history of sequestering juries here
in the U.S. It seems to me that it has become MUCH more prevalent in
the last 20-30 years than, say, around the turn of the century.
Do you really think so? My perception, for what it's worth, is that
(1) there are a _lot_ more jury trials than there used to be, so (2)
you would expect more sequestration in absolute numbers, but (3) the
percentage of sequestrations is going down, because it's just not
cost effective for any but the really high-profile cases.
--
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
Do you really think so? My perception, for what it's worth, is that
(1) there are a _lot_ more jury trials than there used to be, so (2)
you would expect more sequestration in absolute numbers, but (3) the
percentage of sequestrations is going down, because it's just not
cost effective for any but the really high-profile cases.
I don't have any data on sequestration of juries, but IMO (again, no
figures at my fingertips) a much smaller percentage of cases go to
trial today than they did, say, a 100 years ago. I don't know whether
or not Stan is right that there are more total cases going to trial
now, but he's probably right, just cuz there's more people, more
courts, more judges. But the chance of any given case getting all the
way to trial is less. Why? Partly cuz the courts are more crowded
now, yes; but also because the stakes are higher, and the transaction
costs are higher, in the relatively few cases that do go to trial.
It's gotten harder for young lawyers to get much actual civil trial
experience in private practice (which is another good reason many of
them eager to try lots of cases go into the prosecutor's, or public
defenders' offices). The courts have also put lots more emphasis in
the last few decades on "alternative dispute resolution" (ADR)
including arbitration, mediation, judicial settlement conferences,
etc. to take some of the pressure off the courts and ease the burden
and expense on the parties of going all the way to trial. Trial of a
significant case, unless you're in a court with highly streamlined
procedures (which usually only deal with smaller dollar amount civil
cases, and misdemeanor criminal matters) is one of the most expensive,
time-consuming, nerve-wracking, high-pressure events most people are
ever likely to experience. And there is always a winner and a loser,
unlike the compromise positions the parties can work out on their own
if they choose. So any alternative way to resolve the issues is well
sought by both parties.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult a lawyer in a private
communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
|
| |
| |
|
