Prejudgment

Oswald v. Bertrand,
374 F.3d 475 (7^th Cir. 2004) .

Affirming grant of habeas relief where the trial court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into pretrial conversations among potential jurors that defendant was likely guilty and into one juror’s assertion that he "might just vote either way just to end it."

Hughes v. United States,
258 F.3d 453 (6^th Cir. July 9, 2001).

Where juror makes an express admission of bias during voir dire, with no rehabilitation of the juror by the parties or the court, actual bias of the juror was established, requiring a new trial. (Counsel also IAC, here).

United States v. Resko,
3 F.3d 684 (3^rd Cir. 1993) .

Conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine and heroin was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial because every juror admitted to premature deliberations.

Oswald v. Bertrand,
249 F.Supp.2d 1078 ( E.D. Wis. 2003), aff’d, 374 F.3d 475 (7^th Cir. 2004) .

Habeas relief granted after trial court failed to conduct adequate inquiry into pretrial conversations among jurors that defendant was likely guilty and into one juror’s assertion that he "might just vote either way just to end it."

People v. Romano,
8 A.D.3d 503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004) .

Affirming lower court decision setting aside jury verdict where the evidence established that the jurors and the alternate jurors discussed the trial testimony before deliberations commenced, some jurors read and discussed newspaper articles about the case, and there were improper communications between the jurors and the alternate jurors during deliberations.

People v. Rivera,
304 A.D.2d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003) .

Where uncontradicted posttrial hearing testimony established that a juror stated before trial "I know that n* * * *r is guilty,"defendant was entitled to a new trial.

State v. Palmer,
71 P.3d 1078 (Idaho App. 2003) .

Drug conviction reversed where trial court instructed the jurors prior to opening statements that they could discuss the case amongst themselves during the progress of the trial.

State v. McLeskey,
69 P.3d 111 (Idaho 2003) .

Convictions for burglary and aggravated assault with a firearm vacated based on instruction which permitted jurors to discuss the case during the course of the trial. Given the risks involved in permitting jurors in a criminal case to discuss the case prior to its final submission, the court found that prejudice reasonably could have occurred.

Dalton v. State,
63 P.3d 847 (Wash. App. 2003) .

New trial ordered where juror concealed on voir dire that he had formed an opinion about the plaintiff as an "opportunist" (plaintiff was seeking a money judgment after her child died in foster care).

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.

Williams v. State ,
793 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. App. 2001 ).

Manslaughter case remanded where alternate juror told defendant’s family that sitting juror had decided on defendant’s guilt before trial was over; family told defense counsel who did nothing; appellate court held counsel ineffective and remanded case for determination of whether presumption of prejudice could be rebutted.

State v. Cherry,
20 S.W.3d 354 (Ark. 2000).

New trial granted in first-degree murder case where seven of twelve jurors admitted to either participating in or overhearing conversations about the case, alternate juror believed such conversations took place every time jurors were left alone, and one juror indicated that three to five jurors had formed premature opinions about defendant's guilt.

State v. Sweitzer,
2000 WL 973416 (Ohio App. 11 Dist. July 14, 2000), aff'd, 90 Ohio St.3d 1475, 738 N.E.2d 798 (Ohio Nov 22, 2000) .

Rape convictions reversed and new trial granted where trial court, faced with nonfrivolous allegation of premature deliberations, "failed to make further inquiry into the allegations as it had a duty to do to ensure that appellant's Sixth Amendment right was not infringed upon."

State v. Aldret,
489 S.E.2d 635 (S.C. Ct. App. 1997), aff'd, in (relevant) part, rev'd, in part, 509 S.E.2d 811 (SC 1999) .

Alternate juror's affidavit stating that jury engaged in premature deliberations should have been admitted and considered in conjunction with defendant's new trial motion; refusal to inquire into this issue would result in denial of fundamental fairness.

Fisher v. State,
690 A.2d 917 (Del. 1996) .

New trial ordered where defendant was convicted by less than 12 impartial jurors; one juror told other jurors that any African-American male in the area where defendant was arrested was guilty of drug dealing.

Holland v. State,
588 So.2d 543 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991 ) .

Juror allegedly expressed view as to defendant's guilt before jury was empaneled; trial court's failure to inquire whether these remarks had in fact been made, and if so, whether the juror could set her previous opinion aside, required reversal.

Holland v. State,
587 So.2d  848 (Miss. 1991) .

Death penalty sentence overturned. Jurors gave a death sentence before the penalty phase of the trial had even begun. In vacating the sentence of death in this case, the court focused on the fact that opinions, once formed, are difficult to change. The court intimated, however, that if the judge had individually voir dired the panel, then a new sentencing trial might not have been granted.

State v. Joyner,
346 S.E.2d 711 (S.C. 1986).

Judge's confusing instruction concerning premature deliberations actually permitted jury to discuss murder case before deliberations began, requiring reversal. See also State v. Pierce, 346 S.E.2d 707 (S.C. 1986) (companion case).

Knorp v. State,
645 S.W.2d 892 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983) .

Conviction for official misconduct was reversed and remanded for a new trial because jurors prematurely discussed the case, discussed the fact that defendant had taken a loan of $6,000, which was much greater than the amount of money he was formally charged with taking and defendant was separated from his wife.

State v. Eagen,
582 P.2d 1195 (Mont. 1978) .

Conviction for mitigated deliberate homicide was reversed and remanded for a new trial because juror made public pronouncement that he as well as other jurors had prejudged the defendant's guilt and that some of the jurors were the victim's friends and same juror was allowed to sit with other jurors and alternate even after he was disqualified. After an initial interview with the juror who at first denied being in a bar and speaking about the case and then later admitted to "joking" about it, the juror was allowed to sit with the jury for the rest of the afternoon and then he was later replaced by an alternate.

People v. Brown,
132 Cal. Rptr. 217 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1976) .

Conviction for furnishing false claims rendered under a medical program was reversed and remanded for a new trial because during a break juror indicated his belief in the defendant's guilt. The juror to whom the comment was made a sworn statement to the court about the incident.

State v. Drake,
229 S.E.2d 51 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976) .

Second degree murder conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial because of uncontradicted witness testimony that she heard a juror comment on the issue of self-defense as being something the defendant made up to conceal his actions.