Criminal Procedure — new trials — juror misconduct

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — new trials — juror misconduct

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial, even though the defendant presented evidence that some jurors had decided the case prior to the close of evidence.

“Here, the district court determined that the statements should not be presumed prejudicial. That finding was not an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Kimberlin, 805 F.2d at 243-44 (finding no abuse of discretion in not presuming prejudice where defendant claimed that prior to deliberation, one juror had said, ‘“They ought to hang him now, so that we can go home,” or words to that effect’). The comments reported by the alternate juror were not appropriate but are also not unknown in experience with lay jurors encountering unfamiliar procedures and institutions, perhaps for the first time. It is virtually impossible for a human being serving as a juror not to form preliminary opinions about a case while the evidence is presented. Some jurors succumb to the temptation to share those preliminary opinions with others.”

Affirmed.

12-3132 U.S. v. Farmer

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Gilbert, J., Hamilton, J.