Mattox v. United
States
146 U.S. 140
(1892).
Murder
conviction reversed because detailed newspaper article about case was
read to jury in jury room, and because bailiff remarked to jury that
this was third person defendant had killed. Jurors permitted to testify
about extraneous influences in jury room.
United States v. Chandhadara
230 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2000) cert. denied, Chanthadara v. U.S., 122 S.Ct. 457
(2001).
In federal
death penalty case, while jury was out, judge referred to theory of
defense as "bogus" and "a smoke screen," reporters were present, and
jury was ultimately exposed to article with judge's comments. Court
found no effect on guilt verdict because of strength of government's
case but presumes prejudice on penalty and government fails to overcome
presumption.
Nevers v. Killinger
169 F.3d
352 (6th Cir. 1999) cert. denied, Killinger v. Nevers 527 U.S.
1004 (1999).
Second-degree murder conviction vacated on habeas following trial of
white police officer for beating black man to death; trial court had
refused to grant hearing or mistrial after learning that jury had
considered extraneous information about defendant's alleged involvement
in undercover police unit rumored to harass black men; viewed movie
"Malcolm X" which included video of Rodney King beating; and heard news
report about preparations for riot in anticipation of verdict; federal
court found state court's finding of harmless error unreasonable and
contrary to law under AEDPA, holding that exposure to extraneous
evidence, especially about undercover police unit, went directly to
defendant's credibility which was focus of trial.
United States v. Martinez
14
F.3d 543 (11th Cir.
1994)
.
Remand required where jury
deliberations tainted by extrinsic evidence, including watching news
accounts on television, awareness of publicity, and regularly bringing
newspapers into jury room, and because a juror informed other jurors
that defendant faced 160 years imprisonment.
United States v. Aragon
962
F.2d 439 (5th Cir. 1992)
.
Jurors in drug conspiracy
case were exposed to prejudicial news article detailing defendant's
prior criminal record; district court denial of defendant's request to
poll jury to determine article's prejudicial effect was reversible
error.
Bulger v. McClay
575 F.2d 407
(2nd Cir. 1978), cert. denied, Ward v. Bulger 439 U.S. 915, 99 S.Ct. 290, 58 L.Ed.2d 263
(1978)
.
Reversal required where
juror admitted that he had changed his vote after another juror
mentioned contents of newspaper article published over weekend; article
contained defendant's address, which was distant from crime scene and
made his excuse for being in area improbable.
United States v. Thomas
463
F.2d 1061 (7th Cir.
1972) .
Mail fraud conviction was reversed and
remanded for a new trial because trial judge failed to investigate
information that jurors had prejudicial news accounts containing
references to inadmissible evidence in their possession and some jurors
used this information to convince other jurors of the defendant's guilt.
United States v. Kum Seng Seo
300 F.2d 623 (3rd
Cir. 1962) .
Conviction for receiving and
concealing heroin was reversed and remanded for a new trial because
juror introduced news accounts of defendant's incarceration and high
bail of $100,000 and that the heroin was found in the defendant's room
shortly before a vote was taken.
United States v. Gaffney
676 F.Supp. 1544
(M.D. Fla. 1987)
.
Court reversed a mail extortion
conviction and granted motion for a new trial on a variety of juror
misconduct grounds, including media influence when jurors read and
discussed newspaper articles of the trial during their service as jurors
on the case. Court further held that these cases would be addressed on
an ad hoc basis.
U.S. v. Posner,
644 F.Supp. 885 (S.D.Fla. 1986
)
.
Motion for new trial granted in tax evasion case because jurors
received extrinsic information during both trial and deliberations,
including fact of codefendant’s conviction; jury foreperson also read
news accounts of trial and one juror visited property site on which
charges depended.
Marshall v. State,
854 So.2d 1235 (Fla.
2003
)
In death penalty case, the post-conviction court erred by summarily
denying juror misconduct claim where it was alleged that a woman called
defense counsel post-trial claiming to have been a juror at petitioner’s
trial and stating, among other things, that some jurors told racial
jokes about petitioner, some jurors said they would vote to convict and
for a life sentence so that petitioner could be returned to prison to
kill more black inmates, and that some jurors read and discussed outside
articles concerning the trial.
Stroud v. State,
787 N.E.2d 430 (Ind. App.
2003
)
In drug prosecution, the trial court abused its discretion in denying
defendant’s motion for a mistrial after the court contaminated the
entire jury by having jurors who had been exposed to a prejudicial news
article describe the contents of the article in front of the other
jurors, and then failed to expressly admonish the jurors not to consider
the information from the article. In finding prejudice, the appellate
court noted that the article informed the jury that the defendant had
previously been convicted of committing a similar offense, that the
defendant was currently charged with a triple homicide, and that the
defendant had engaged in egregious inappropriate and antisocial behavior
during prior criminal proceedings. Also significant to the court is the
fact that the jury was exposed to the article early in the case.
Commonwealth v.
Fredette,
776 N.E.2d 464
(Mass. App. 2002
)
Trial court abused its discretion in
refusing to grant mistrial where eleven jurors and one alternate read
newspaper article indicating that defendant in narcotics trial on which
jurors sat also faced separate murder trial; trial court had previously
barred the prosecution from admitting evidence relating to the murder
charge.
Guam v. Castro,
2002 WL 31663293 (Guam Terr. Nov. 27, 2002)
(unreported
)
New trial for manslaughter properly granted where jurors received
information about prior manslaughter charge of defendant’s from print
and televised news and from coworkers.
Hodge v.
Commonwealth,
68 S.W.3d
338 (Ky. 2001
)
Remand for full evidentiary hearing where defendant in robbery/murder
case alleged that prosecutor visited jurors daily; jurors were provided
with newspapers and alcohol; jurors decided on guilt before
deliberations began; and other jury tampering
occurred.
State v. Bisaccia,
724 A.2d 836 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
1999
)
Trial court erred in refusing to grant mistrial or order inquiry in
racketeering trial despite numerous allegations of misconduct, including
jury’s exposure to newspapers in deliberation room; judge’s ex
parte communication with juror who indicated he could not be fair;
and jurors’ expressed concerns about being followed by man from
courtroom. Hearing is ordered. If a hearing is not possible given the
six years since the trial was held, a retrial will be
required.
State v.
Myers
603 N.W.2d 390
(Neb. 1999)
.
Trial court abused its discretion in
refusing to grant mistrial where eleven jurors and one alternate read
newspaper article indicating that defendant in narcotics trial on which
jurors sat also faced separate murder trial; trial court had previously
barred the prosecution from admitting evidence relating to the murder
charge.
Province v. Center for Women's
Health
25 Cal. Rptr.2d 667 (Cal. App.2. Dist.
1993)
.
Reversed where jurors
discussed newspaper article as making the decision "clear cut" in
negligence action.
People v. Holloway
790 P.2d
1327 (Cal. 1990).
Capital case. Conviction for murders, armed robbery and attempted rape
with a punishment of death was reversed and remanded for retrial because
juror read news accounts detailing defendant's prior assault of a woman
with a hammer. Defendant's prior was excluded from trial because
prejudice was found to be greater than probity with respect to this
conviction.
State v. Harvey
730 S.W.2d
271 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987)
.
Capital case. The court ordered a
remand for a hearing when, in this capital case, jurors deliberately
reconnected television and radio wires in their hotel rooms after these
wires had been disconnected to prevent jurors from exposure to news
media influences during the trial.
People v.
Andrews
196 Cal. Rptr. 796 (Cal.
Ct. App. 1983)
.
Conviction for robbery, assault and
unlawful taking of vehicle was reversed and remanded for a new trial
because jurors inadvertently viewed news account of a co-defendant's
guilty plea.
State v.
Salters
257 S.E.2d
502 (S.C. 1967)
.
The court reversed and remanded a
conviction for arson, conspiracy to commit arson and intent to defraud
an insurance company because jurors had read news accounts of charges
against defendant for which he was not then on
trial.