Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-2091 Whitehead v. Cowan

By: dmc-admin//September 4, 2001//

00-2091 Whitehead v. Cowan

By: dmc-admin//September 4, 2001//

Listen to this article

“Whitehead argues that his right to a fair and impartial jury was violated because a local newspaper published the names and addresses of the jurors. Indeed, the Supreme Court has found that publication of juror names and addresses can contribute to the deprivation of a fair trial. See Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966). Sheppard, like Estes and Rideau, was a case of presumed prejudice, however. The result in that case ‘arose from a trial infected not only by a background of extremely inflammatory publicity but also by a courthouse given over to accommodate the public appetite for carnival.’ Murphy, 421 U.S. at 799. Moreover, in Sheppard the publication of juror names and addresses meant that ‘the jurors were thrust into the role of celebrities.’ The publication of their names and addresses resulted in ‘expressions of opinion from both cranks and friends,’ including anonymous letters. See Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 353. There is no evidence of similar juror contacts in this case, and the Sheppard Court based its decision on the totality of the circumstances. We conclude that Sheppard does not require a finding of presumed prejudice based on the publication of juror names and addresses in the circumstances of this case.

“Whitehead nevertheless claims that the publication of jurors’ names and addresses requires a hearing to determine its effect under Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229 (1954). In Remmer, a third party contacted a juror and suggested that ‘he could profit by bringing in a verdict favorable to the petitioner.’ Id. at 228. The defendant moved for a new trial and sought a hearing on the issue, which was denied by the trial court. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that a hearing was necessary in these circumstances… Although it is true that Remmer calls for a hearing in many cases where there is a communication with a juror during a trial, we do not agree that Remmer applies to the publication of juror addresses. The media publication of the jurors’ names and addresses does not address a matter at issue in the trial or provide any new information about the case to the jurors, nor did the context of the publication, as in Sheppard, demonstrate a likelihood that it would affect the jury’s deliberations. This is not a third-party contact of the sort described in Remmer. We conclude that the Illinois Supreme Court’s determination that a hearing was unnecessary was appropriate on these facts.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Williams, J., Manion, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests