Take-Home Exam
\nDue in the Registrar’s Office
\nno later than Wednesday, May 6, 2015
\nat 5:45p.m.
\nInstructions
\nYou are to write one well-written, well-organized memo that is your own work product
\nand that addresses each of the four points raised on the next page. Your memorandum is to be
\ntyped and double-spaced throughout.
\nYour memorandum is not to exceed 3000 words (which is about 10-12 pages). At the
\nend of the memorandum, please print out (or manually count and write in) the total number of
\nwords contained in your memorandum. Please note: I am serious about the word limit! Feel
\nfree to go under, but not over, the word limit. Those who do not adhere to the word limit will
\nhave points deducted from their score.
\nIt is up to you to decide how much space you want to devote to your discussion of any
\none of points (1)- (4) as well as how you want to organize your memorandum, but whatever you
\ndecide be sure to address all four points in the course of your memo.
\nRemember that your answers do not require any additional research, and you should not
\ncite any readings outside the readings we read as a class. Whenever possible, however, illustrate
\nyour points by drawing from the reading assignments, class discussions, and DVDs. Full
\ncitations are not required; it will be sufficient to use a case’s or author’s name, and a page number
\nif appropriate. Abbreviated citations (whether they appear in the text or as footnotes) are part of
\nthe total word count for your essay.
\nThe take-home exam will be distributed at the end of class on Wednesday, April29, 2015
\nand is due no later than 5:45p.m. on Wednesday, May 6, 2015. Please turn in the exam to the
\nRegistrar’s Office, with only your exam number on it so that there can be blind grading. Please
\ndo not include your name anywhere on your exam answer.
\nHave a good summer!
\nl
\nOn the following pages (pages 1 – 8) are two articles describing the first criminal trial of
\nformer Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. The first article, entitled Jurors Fault Complexity of
\nthe Blagojevich Trial, appeared in the New York Times on August 18, 2010. The second article,
\nentitled The Holdout Juror; For the r Time, Suburban Woman Explains Her Vote, appeared in
\nthe Chicago Tribune on August 27,2010. As you know from our speaker, Mr. James
\nMatsumoto, who was the foreperson ofthisjury, the jury deliberations were difficult. He
\nregretted that the jury could only reach a verdict on one count; it was a hung jury as to the
\nremaining twenty-three counts.
\nAssume you are a jury expert who has been asked to make policy recommendations to the
\nAmerican Bar Association (ABA) based on the jury trial described in the attached newspaper
\narticles. The ABA would like you to draft a memo in which you address all points below (1 – 4):
\n(1) Jurors Fault Complexity mentions that the jury consisted of”three blacks, six whites,
\na Latino, someone with American Indian roots and Mr. Matsumoto, who is Asian-American.”
\nWe also know that the jury consisted of six men and six women. These descriptions suggest that
\nthe jury was diverse according to race and gender. One of the criticisms of peremptory
\nchallenges is that they lead to less diverse juries. Although the articles do not mention
\nperemptory challenges, the government had 9 peremptory challenges and the defense had 13
\nperemptory challenges, in addition to the for cause challenges that the judge decides. Explain to
\nthe ABA whether you think the number of peremptories should remain as it is, or whether the
\nnumber should be changed (and if so to what number), or whether peremptories should be
\neliminated or some other position. Whichever position you think is correct, explain why you
\narrived at that position and which readings led you to that view.
\n(2) In federal court, where this trial took place, the only instruction the judge provides as
\nto deliberations is as follows: “Upon retiring to the jury room, you must select a presiding juror
\n[a foreperson]. The presiding juror will preside over your deliberations and will be your
\nrepresentative here in court.” Explain to the ABA whether you agree with this instruction, and if
\nso why. If you disagree, explain what information you would want the court to provide to jurors
\nto inform them about deliberations. If there are lessons to be learned from the class readings on
\ndeliberations, the movie, television pr~gram, or guest speaker we saw, share them with the ABA.
\n(3) Mr. Matsumoto explained to our class some ofthe difficulties the jury encountered in
\ndoing its job. What tools could the court have used-from among those we read about this
\nsemester–to help the jury better understand the nature of its job and to perform its job more
\neasily? (Your response should address different issues than those you discussed in (2) above).
\n(4) The Holdout Juror describes the difficulty ofbeing a hold-out. Mr. Matsumoto also
\nexplained how bad he felt that the jury was a hung jury. He felt it had failed to accomplish its
\ntask. (a) Advise the ABA on whether you think there are any steps that courts or juries could
\ntake to help the hold-out juror remain a hold-out, ifyou think that is important, or any steps that
\ncourts or juries could take to pressure the hold-out to go along with the other jurors, if you think
\nit is important for the jury to reach agreement. (b) In either case, be sure to explain what role you
\nthink the hold-out juror plays in our jury system.
\nGl
\n. _ Jw’ors Fault Complexity of the Blagojevich Trial – NYTimes.com
\nlbelautJorklilaaReprints
\nThis copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to
\nyour colleagues, clients or customers here or use the “Reprints” tool that appears next to any article. Visit
\nwww.nytreprints.oom for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.
\nAugust 18, 2010
\nJurors Fault CoiDplexity of the
\nBlagojevich Trial
\nBy MONICA DAVEY and SUSAN SAULNY
\nPage 1 of4
\nPRINTEA-FRIENDI.Y FORMAT
\nSPCMISOIED IIY
\nCAREY
\nMULLIGAN
\nCHICAGO -As the jurors in the corruption case against Rod R. Blagojevich, the former
\nIllinois governor, entered a 25th-floor conference room here, one problem was instantly
\nclear: They were overwhelmed.
\nThe judge had handed them instructions that ran to more than a hundred pages. The verdict
\nsheet was as elaborate as some income tax forms. And many of the 24 counts they were
\nbeing asked to consi~er came in multiple parts and were highly technical and
\ninterconnected.
\n“It was like, ‘Here’s a manual, go fly the space shuttle,” Steve Wlodek, one of the jurors, said
\nWednesday.
\nJurors said it took them several days just to figure out how to begin to break down their
\nassignment into manageable tasks – not to mention how to understand the legal
\nterminology (what exactly is conspiracy to commit extortion?). These were early hints of the
\nmultiple stumbling blocks they would find as they struggled, but failed, over 14 days of
\ndeliberations, to reach a verdict on any of the counts but one.
\nIt also became clear early on that some jurors believed that much of Mr. Blagojevich’s crass
\npolitical talk – captured in hours of secretly recorded phone calls – amounted to dreamy
\nthoughts of what he might gain, not criminal demands.
\nThe jury’s conclusion came as a surprise to many since prosecutors had long suggested that
\ntheir evidence would be overwhelming.
\n“A lot of it came down to, ‘What was his intent?'” Mr. Wlodek said. “You could infer
\nsomething if you looked at it one way, or not if you looked another.”
\nOne juror among the 12 disagreed with the rest over convicting Mr. Blagojevich on counts
\ntied to what prosecutors described as attempts to sell the United States Senate seat once held
\n~~e .1
\nhttp:\/ \/www.nytimes.com\/20 1 0\/08\/19\/us\/19jury .html? r= 1 &ref=us&pagewanted=print 8\/19\/2010
\n~—–a~ ——–‘
\n.- Jurors Fault Complexity ofthe Blagojevich Trial- NYTimes.com Page 2 of4
\nby President Obama, but the jurors were more evenly split over other counts against the
\nformer governor and had, at various times during their private deliberations, cast votes with
\nall sorts of margins.
\nThat, legal experts said, does not bode well for prosecutors, who have vowed to retry their
\ncase. In cases involving hung juries, a lone holdout may not be a sign of a significant
\nproblem for prosecutors, while a more equally divided jury could be.
\nIn the end, the jurors convicted Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat elected to two terms as
\ngovernor, on one charge of giving a false statement to federal agents, but reached a
\nconclusion that is rare in criminal cases: that they could not agree on the 23 other counts,
\nincluding the most serious ones.
\nInterviews with a handful of the jurors here offered a glimpse inside the conference room
\nand a sense of why the foreman, James Matsumoto, a retired video librarian for public
\ntelevision, had on Tuesday morning come to his own certainty that there would be no
\ncertainty here.
\n“It was kind of a bittersweet thing,” Mr. Matsumoto said, in the living room of his house on
\nthis city’s Northwest Side, “relief that the trial is over, but frustration that we didn’t
\naccomplish what we set out to do.”
\nThe jury, which had been meeting since the trial’s start in June, was a quiet, sober bunch- a
\nmath teacher, a former Marine, a college student, a retired mail carrier and a retired Navy
\ncommander among them. They included three blacks, six whites, a Latino, someone with
\nAmerican Indian roots and Mr. Matsumoto, who is Asian-American.
\nAfter initial frustration and confusion upon arriving in the deliberation room with little
\nsense of what to do next, the jurors laid out a plan.
\nOn large sheets of paper, they wrote down crimes Mr. Blagojevich was accused of
\ncommitting, and taped each one on the walls around the room. On the sheets: a claim that he
\nhad sought political contributions in exchange for legislation to help a local pediatric
\nhospital; another that he had sought a political fund-raising event in exchange for state
\nfinancing for a school; another that he had sought payments for a law that would benefit the
\nhorse racing industry; and so on.
\nFrom time to time, after talking about each claim – and often replaying audiotapes of the
\nformer governor’s secretly recorded phone calls connected to it -the jurors would take a
\nvote by secret ballot, and write the margin on a Post-it note attached to the appropriate
\np~E:z_
\nhttp:\/ \/www.nytimes.com\/20 1 0\/08\/19\/us\/19jury .html? _r= 1&ref=us&pagewanted=print 8\/19\/2010 — a
\n_ Jurors Fault Complexity of the Blagojevich Trial- NYTimes.com Page 3 of4
\nsheet. This was repeated over and again, often for the same criminal count. “We voted so
\nmany times,” Mr. Matsumoto said.
\n‘l\u00b7he margins ranged vastly and changed as the talks went on. Sometimes, he said, the vote
\nwas 7 to 5, then 5 to 7, then 9 to 3.
\nYet the matter of whether Mr. Blagojevich had tried to sell his appointment to fill Mr.
\nObama’s former Senate seat raised perhaps the most attention, and took up, jurors said, at
\nleast five days of the deliberations.
\nAfter initially being more evenly split on that question, 11 jurors repeatedly cast votes in
\nfavor of convicting on the charges connected to it – charges that included bribery,
\nconspiracy, extortion conspiracy and racketeering. Many in the group felt that this was the
\nprosecution’s strongest case, and the set of counts that the jury was most likely to agree on.
\nBut one juror, a woman whom other jurors declined to identify, saying they wanted to
\nrespect her privacy, never budged in her opposition to convicting on the counts. She was
\nunmoved by recorded calls in which Mr. Blagojevich and his aides spoke of possible jobs,
\ndonations, even a White House cabinet appointment he might get after making his Senate
\nchoice.
\nMr. Wlodek described her stance as “very noble,” adding: “She did not see it as a violation of
\nany laws. It was politics. It was more of conversations of what-ifs.”
\nAnother juror, Erik Sarnello, a student from the suburbs, said: “She just didn’t see it, didn’t
\nthink they had proven it. She wanted clear-cut evidence.”
\nThe conversations grew passionate, but yelling was rare , jurors said. No one recalled tears.
\nThere were light moments of bonding, even amid the disagreement.
\nMr. Matsumoto referred to some fellow jurors by nicknames. Mr. Sarnello celebrated his
\n21st birthday during deliberations. And Mr. Wlodek presented the group with a picture his 5
\n-year-old daughter had drawn of Mr. Blagojevich and the courtroom as she imagined it.
\nIn the end, Mr. Matsumoto sent a note to the judge, his fifth over 14 days: A verdict was in,
\nsuch as it was.
\nBy Wednesday, the group’s views were so vigorously sought after that a court official advised
\nthe 12 to call911 if reporters grew too persistent.
\nhttp:\/ \/www.nytimes.com\/20 1 0\/08\/19\/us\/19jury .html? _r= 1 &ref=us&pagewanted=print 8\/19\/2010 a
\nJurors Fault Complexity of the Blagojevich Trial- NYTimes.com Page 4 of4
\nFrom his living room, the foreman said he believed that a retrial was “owed to the people,”
\nbut he and other jurors also seemed to have some advice for prosecutors: Streamline the
\ncharges, drop some, pick your shots.
\nBut Mr. Wlodek also had an observation Mr. Blagojevich may wish to consider.
\n“There seemed to be a lot of grandstanding, a lot of laughter on his side of the room,” he said
\nof the former governor’s courtroom demeanor. “It kind of made me wonder whether he was
\ntaking this seriously.”
\nhttp:\/ \/www.nytimes.com\/20 1 0\/08\/19\/us\/19jury .html? r=1 &ref=us&pagewanted=print 8\/19\/2010
\n…~ earch – 15 Results – holdout juror and Rod Blagojevich Page 1 of4
\nCustom ID : – No Description – \u2022 1 Switch Client 1 Preferences 1
\nHelp I LiveSupport I Sign Out
\nHistory Alerts
\nFOCUS'”‘ Terms holdout juror and Rod Blagojevich \u2022 Search Within Original Results (1 – 15) View
\nTutorial
\nSource: News & Business> Individual Publications> C >Chicago Tribune
\nTerms: holdout juror and Rod Blagojevich (Edit Search I Suggest Terms for My Search)
\n..t;’select for FOCUS’M or Delivery
\nICI
\nThe holdout juror; For the 1st time, suburban woman explains her vote Chicago Tribune August
\n27, 2010 Friday
\nCopyright 2010 Chicago Tribune Company
\nChicago Tribune
\nSECTION: NEWS ; Z9NE C; Pg. 1
\nLENGTH: 1475 words
\nHEADLINE: The holdout juror;
\nAugust 27, 2010 Friday
\nChicagoland Final Edition
\nFor the 1st time, suburban woman explains her vote
\nBYLINE: By Stacy St. Clair, Tribune reporter
\nBODY:
\nBattling stomach pains and fatigue, JoAnn Chiakulas would take the train into the city each
\nmorning knowing that her resolve was disappointing some people and infuriating others.
\nBut the 67-year-old grandmother said she also knew that as a juror in Rod Blagojevich’s
\ncorruption trial, she had a responsibility to follow her conscience and the law. She said she did
\nnot believe he or his brother committed a crime with their actions to fill Barack Obama’s Senate
\nseat, so she would not find them guilty despite what other jurors, prosecutors and, perhaps,
\nthe general public wanted.
\nIf it was going to be 11-1, so be it.
\n“I could never live with myself if I went along with the rest of the jury,” Chiakulas told the
\nTribune in her first media interview since the trial ended. “I didn’t believe it was the correct
\nvote for me.”
\nThe jury deliberated on the sweeping corruption charges for 14 days and, in the end, convicted
\nRod Blagojevich of one count of lying to the FBI. The panel was split on the 23 other counts,
\nprompting the judge to declare a mistrial and the government to promise a retrial.
\nOn Thursday, prosecutors dropped charges against the ex-governor’s brother, Robert, “in the
\ninterests of justice.” All four counts against Robert Blagojevich were related to the Senate seat.
\n~CA-~e.shttp:\/
\n\/www.lexis.com\/research\/retrieve?cc=&oushme= 1 &tmoFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tagge… 3\/4\/2011
\n–~—.ii.r——~\u00b7
\n, Search – 15 Results – holdout juror and Rod Blagojevich . .,. Page 2 of4
\nIn the week since the trial’s end, Chiakulas has been branded “the holdout” for her refusal to
\nconvict the ex-governor on the Senate seat allegations. Her life has been placed under a
\nmicroscope, with some questioning whether her former government job or her ex-husband’s
\ncampaign donation to Blagojevich three decades after they divorced played a role in her
\ndecision.
\nA former state public health employee who retired before Blagojevich took office, Chiakulas said
\nshe had no allegiance to the former governor or his family. Though she knew he had been
\narrested and impeached, she ignored his pretrial efforts to curry public favor and never saw his
\nstint on “Celebrity Apprentice.”
\n“I wasn’t impressed with his shenanigans,” she said.
\nChiakulas and two other jurors broke their silence in an interview Wednesday night and offered
\ntheir account of the deliberations and the trial’s aftermath. Also attending was longtime Chicago
\nTribune contributor Ruth Fuller, a family friend who helped arrange the meeting.
\nChiakulas said she found Blagojevich’s recorded statements on the Senate vacancy to be so
\nscattered and disorganized that his actions did not reach the level of a criminal conspiracy.
\nOne day he chattered about being the Indian ambassador, for example, then in the next
\nconversation he discussed another plan. In the space of a few weeks, he talked about
\nappointing, among others, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Oprah Winfrey or himself.
\nShe said she never saw him formulate a clear plan to sell the seat. But in voting him not guilty,
\nshe stressed she did not find him innocent.
\n“I thought he was narcissistic,” she said. “I thought he was all over the place. I thought he was
\njust rambling.”
\nIt also concerned Chiakulas that some key witnesses who testified against Blagojevich had cut
\ndeals with prosecutors before testifying, she said.
\n“Some people in (the jury room) only saw black and white,” Chiakulas said. “I think I saw, in
\nthe transcripts and in the testimony, shades of gray. To me, that means reasonable doubt.”
\nBut standing her ground in the jury room was not easy. Other jurors have acknowledged
\npressuring Chiakulas to change her vote on the Senate seat, with one man going so far as to
\nswitch chairs so he could “look her in the eyes” during deliberations. She was yelled at and told
\nshe wasn’t being logical, jurors said.
\nOne person asked the judge for a copy of the juror’s oath, implying that Chiakulas wasn’t
\nfulfilling her obligation. Chiakulas and at least two other female jurors said they felt belittled
\nand questioned whether their gender had something to do with their treatment.
\n“Our voices really weren’t heard,” Chiakulas said. “And people did get very upset because they
\nfelt like they were being ignored or disrespected.”
\nThe tension during deliberations stood in stark contrast to the familial feeling throughout the
\nseven-week trial. The jury spent endless hours together at the federal courthouse, celebrating
\nbirthdays, finishing communal crossword puzzles and sharing lunches. They couldn’t discuss the
\ncase — the one thing they had in common — so they discussed their lives.
\nSome relationships, however, began to unravel during deliberations when jurors realized that
\nreal divisions existed. After convicting Blagojevich of lying to the FBI, they could not find
\nunanimous agreement anywhere else.
\n“~e b
\nhttp:\/\/www .lexis.com\/research\/retrieve?cc=&pushme= 1 &tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tagge… 3\/4\/2011 —– tJ
\nSearch – 15 Results – holdout juror and Rod Blagojevich – Page 3 of4
\nThey split fairly evenly on some counts, particularly those involving Robert Blagojevich and
\naccusations that the former governor shook down a horse track owner for campaign
\ncontributions. But the divide over the Senate seat — the case’s marquee charge — would be the
\none that grabbed headlines.
\nThe vote was 11-1, though others, including juror Ashlee Moore, had doubts about
\nBlagojevich’s guilt during deliberations. Moore initially voted “not guilty” on the Senate charges
\nand then changed her mind in the final days after listening to the tapes again.
\nChiakulas realized her stance caused great tension, and it weighed heavily on her, she said.
\nShe had stomach pains that made it difficult to sleep. She was taking Tylenol in the morning to
\nease the headaches that arose during deliberations in the cramped, hot jury room.
\n“I can’t explain how badly I felt,” she said. “I didn’t sleep at night. I thought about it on the
\ntrain. I wanted to make sure my reasonable doubt was reasonable.”
\nThough one juror said he considered sending a note to the judge accusing Chiakulas of not
\ndeliberating in good faith, juror Olga Duvvuri said Chiakulas listened to everyone’s opinion and
\nalways contributed to the discussions. She took copious notes during debates, highlighted
\nimportant portions of transcripts and repeatedly listened to the recorded phone calls that
\nprovided the foundation for the prosecution’s case.
\nIf anything, some jurors were so convinced of Blagojevich’s guilt that they refused to consider
\nChiakulas’ argument~ for acquitting, Duvvuri said.
\n“JoAnn did her job. She did the right thing,” said Duvvuri, who voted to convict Blagojevich on
\nsome counts and acquit on others. “She voted how she saw the evidence.”
\nStill, the holdout label upsets Chiakulas and some other jurors because, they say, it wrongly
\nsuggests she was a Blagojevich apologist. To the contrary, she readily acknowledged the
\ngovernor’s faults during deliberations and made it clear that she didn’t condone his behavior or
\nleadership, Moore said.
\n“She admitted he talks too much, he sounds like an idiot sometimes,” Moore said. “She said,
\n‘But we’re not here to determine whether he talks like an idiot sometimes. That’s not what he’s
\non trial for.’ ”
\nWhen the trial ended, Chiakulas took the train home to the western suburbs and was ready to
\nput the experience behind her. She had no idea that over the next 48 hours she would become
\nthe subject of newspaper articles, radio talk shows, TV reports and blogs.
\nAfter jurors referred to an unnamed holdout in interviews, Chiakulas’ neighbors, friends and
\nrelatives were bombarded with phone calls, e-mails and interview requests. Reporters camped
\nout at her home for hours, leaving notes asking her to defend both her vote and her
\nbackground.
\nChiakulas, for her part, said she was a public servant hired during Gov. Jim Edgar’s
\nadministration. Her ex-husband was politically active before his death, but they were divorced
\nmore than 30 years ago.
\nShe also said she did not know Blagojevich co-defendant Chris Kelly, who lived in the same
\nsubdivision as one of her relatives before committing suicide a year ago.
\nThe inferences — along with suggestions that she’s “crazy” — anger Chiakulas. She said it
\nupsets her that people want to find an ulterior motive for her decision, rather than believe it’s
\npossible that the prosecution had not proved its case.
\n~Nj~ .ihttp:\/\/
\nwww .lexis.com\/research\/retrieve?cc=&pushme= 1 &tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tagge. .. 3\/4\/2011
\nd
\n\u2022 \u2022 Search – 15 Results – holdout juror and Rod Blagojevich Page 4 of4
\n“It was something that I took seriously and didn’t ask for,” she said. “And then to be treated
\nthe way I’ve been treated, it makes me wonder about being a juror and the system itself.”
\nf”‘”‘lid the media frenzy, Moore grew increasingly concerned for Chiakulas’ well-being. When she
\nc.uuldn’t reach her by telephone, Moore called U.S. Judge James Zagel’s chambers and asked
\nthat someone make sure Chiakulas was OK.
\n“I just feel that JoAnn was thrown under the bus a little,” Moore said. “And it makes me sad.”
\nWhile Chiakulas shunned the media spotlight in the days after the verdict, the loquacious
\nBlagojevich appeared on national television to thank her for her resolve and proclaim that she
\nhas reaffirmed his faith in God.
\nWhen asked about his comments, Chiakulas frowned and slightly shook her head.
\n“I didn’t do it for him,” she said.
\nsstclair@tribune.com
\nNOTES: THE BLAGOJEVICH TRIAL: TRIBUNE EXCLUSIVE
\nGRAPHIC: Graphic (color): Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich?s attorney Sam Adam Jr. speaks to
\nthe jurors on July 27. “I could never live with myself if I went along with the rest of the jury,”
\nholdout juror JoAn,n Chiakulas says. “I didn’t believe it was the correct vote for me.” CHERYL
\nCOOK\/ILLUSTRATION FOR THE TRIBUNE
\nGraphic(s)
\nLOAD-DATE: August 27, 2010
\nSource:
\nTerms:
\nView:
\nDate\/Time:
\nIn
\nNews & Business > Individual Publications > C > Chicago Tribune 11]
\nholdout juror and Rod Blagojevich (Edit Search 1 Suggest Terms for My Search)
\nFull
\nFriday, March 4, 2011 – 3:33 PM EST
\nAbout LexisNexis 1 Privacy Policy 1 Terms & Conditions I Contact Us
\nCopyright \u00a9 2011 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
\np~~ ~
\nhttp :\/\/wv.w.lexis.com\/research\/retrieve?cc=&pushme= 1 &tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tagge… 3\/4\/2011<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
URORS FAULT COMPLEXITY OF THE BLAGOJEVICH TRIAL AND THE HOLDOUT JUROR
\nStudent\u2019s Registration
\nInstitution\u2019s Name
\nCourse Title<\/p>\n
\u2003
\n JURORS FAULT COMPLEXITY
\n As the attorneys and defendants scanned the jurors’ faces looking for favourable signs during the ex-Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich’s, corruption trial, most of them could not get to read on the poker-faced grandmother taking meticulous notes on the far end of the jury box.
\nJoAnn Chiakulas was a retired state employee who turned out to be the only holdout standing against a conviction of the ousted governor on charges that he had tried to sell President Barack Obama’s old Senate seat.
\nIt was nine days later after jurors deadlocked on all but one charge against Blagojevich, Chiakulas defended publicly her resolve in an interview, for the first time, published on a Friday by the Chicago Tribune. It filled out a picture of tensed juror deliberations and the feeding debate about her role. Chiakulas stood by her vote and said that she had found Blagojevich’s statements captured on the Federal Bureau of Investigation wiretap recordings in a disorganized manner and so scattered that his actions could not be termed or amount to a criminal conspiracy. She told the tribute that she thought that Blagojevich was just rambling and swore that she would disown herself if she went ahead to support what the jury purported.
\nChiakulas, who had declined to respond to a media\u2019s onslaught requests including several which came from The Associated Press. She answered some with some of the conjecture about her not arising after the verdict. From that, her motives were to see whether her past work where she served as a state bureaucrat would somehow be coloured and see that Blagojevich was dismissed as a routine political horse trader. <\/p>\n
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE
\nPeremptory Challenge is the right and not an obligation of the plaintiff and the defendant who are in a jury trial to have the juror dismissed before trial is carried without stating a reason. This challenge is different from a challenge for cause\/reason based on the potential juror having to admit bias, any acquaintanceship with the attorney or one of the parties, having personal knowledge about the facts underlying the case, or evidence of some other basis to believe that he\/she might not act impartially.
\nNUMBER OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES
\nThe number of peremptory challenges for either side differs based on the state law, the number of parties involved in a case, and whether the case involves a civil or a criminal trial. The lawyers usually use the phraseology “Juror number seven may be excuse in exercising the challenge. Peremptory challenges are a basis to provide a more impartial and a better qualified jury. It also allows an attorney to dismiss a potential juror for a real or an imagined partiality that would become difficult in demonstrating under the challenge for a cause category. However, peremptory challenges, have become more difficult to exercise since the U.S. Supreme Court has banned any peremptory strikes which are based on race or gender.
\nParties to a case do not have any federal constitutional right to dare exercise a peremptory challenge. These peremptory challenges are only granted by statute or by case law. In addition, the number of challenges to exercise is usually determined by statute, although some jurisdictions can allow the trial court in question to grant additional peremptory challenges.
\nIn a federal court, either side is entitled to three peremptory challenges unless there are more than two parties involved in the proceedings where the court has an option to either grant additional challenges or even restrict the parties to that minimum number of challenges.
\nIn the Jurors Fault Complexity, it is public knowledge that the government had nine peremptory challenges while the defence side had thirteen. If this case was carried out in the federal court, the two sides should have been restricted to the three peremptory challenges. This therefore means that both sides had more than required number of peremptory challenges. It is however possible that this court where the proceedings were taking place had been mandated by its jurisdiction to grant additional peremptory challenges.
\nThese peremptory challenges which came under the legal attack in the 1980s have been criticized with a claim that white prosecutors were using their peremptory challenges to remove the African Americans from the jury when the criminal defendants were also African American for the prosecutors thought that potential jurors would sympathize with a member of their race.
\nThe state and the defendants shall each be given these number of peremptory challenges:
\nIf the offense with which one is charged is punishable by either death or life imprisonment; then one is allowed ten peremptory challenges while one is allowed only six if the offence is only punishable by imprisonment for more than twelve months and not by either death or life imprisonment. Any other offences attracts three peremptory challenges but if two or more defendants are being tried jointly, each defendant is allowed the number of peremptory challenges mentioned above and the state is allowed as many challenges as there are allowed to all of the defendants.<\/p>\n
SELECTION OF JURORS
\nSelection of jurors is done from some combined lists of registered voters and those of Department of Motor Vehicles records. The length of jury term of service keeps varying from county to county, but there is no trial juror who can serve more than 10 days unless it is necessary to complete a trial in progress. A day of service refers to each day during a jury service term when a juror is expected to attend and actually attends. All persons at least eighteen years of age are eligible to serve as a juror as long as they are U.S. Citizens, and reside in that county when they are summoned, unless he\/she has had their rights and privileges withdrawn as a result of some criminal convictions or have ever served in the jury duty in any state or a federal Court in Oregon in the last 24 months. This opportunity for jury service is not denied or limited based on race, country of origin, sex, age, religion, income, occupation, or any factor which discriminates against a group in Oregon.
\nThere are no excuses from jury duty which are granted based on status as a business proprietor, teacher, doctor, lawyer, professor, police officer or any other occupations. It is of utmost importance to the administration of justice that jurors are always available from the entire community and that any requests to be excused are made only when a genuine evidence of undue hardship or extreme inconvenience is in existence. If there is a good cause shown, the persons can request that their term of service is deferred until another term.
\nEach and every county should set a different amount of time for the juror’s term of service during which the juror may be required to offer service. <\/p>\n
Disabled Jurors: No person can be termed as is ineligible to act as a juror whether he\/she is blind, hearing impaired, speech impaired or with a physical disability on the basis of their disability or impairment alone. In the event that a disabled juror is summoned, he\/she has a chance to submit a written request seeking for the services of a qualified interpreter or the option to use of an Helpive communications device. In this case, the interpreter or the Helpive device is used to determine his or her ability to act as a juror or qualification to perform his or her functions appropriately as a juror. Once the Court finds that the juror is in need of the services of an interpreter or requires an Helpive communication device, an interpreter is appointed by the court or an Helpive communication device provided. The public authority is the one responsible for the costs, compensation, and any expenses which are required to accommodate such a disabled juror.
\nThe Jury Deliberations on the Presiding Juror: After the jury receives and hears the instructions the final arguments respectively, it retires to the jury room to concentrate on deliberating. In most of the states, the first order of business is usually to elect the foreperson or presiding juror. The Presiding juror s responsible for presiding over all discussions and the voting of the jurors, and thereafter deliver the verdict. On the other side, we have a bailiff whose job is to see to it that there is no communication with the jury in the course of deliberations. Hence, the instruction provided by the judge in a federal court that as \u201cUpon retiring to the jury room, you must select a presiding juror\u201d is justified. I tend to fully agree with the statement in that, without the foreman, it would be hard for the deliberations to take place efficiently. The presiding juror is truly the person who presides over the deliberations and acts as representative in court.
\nIn some states, it is common practice for the jury to take the exhibits in the record to the jury room as well as judge\u2019s instructions. Sometimes the jury may also question the evidence or the instructions given by the judge. In the event this happens, the jury gives a note to the bailiff to take to the judge to which the judge may respond or call the jury into the courtroom for further discussions and instructions or even have some portions of the transcript being read to them. Important to note is that any communication between the judge and jury must take place in presence of lawyers from each side or with their knowledge.
\nIn normal circumstances, the court issues the jury with written forms bearing all possible verdict to ensure that the jury chooses the proper verdict when a decision is reached .Usually, a criminal case attracts a unanimous verdict. However, some states allow a less than unanimous decision but all federal cases must have a unanimous decision.
\nIf the case where the jury fails to come to a decision by the end of the day, they may be sequestered. They may also be housed in a hotel in seclusion from all other people, any newspaper and news reports. The jury, however, be allowed to go home at night in most cases with the judge\u2019s instruction that they should not read or view any reports of the case in the news. They should also not discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room.
\nIn a case where the jurors cannot agree on a verdict, they get a hung jury which leads to a mistrial. In this case, a decision will not be reached and it may be tried some time later before a new jury. This may even lead to the plaintiff or government deciding not to pursue the case further.
\nDIFFICULTIES THAT JURORS FACE
\nThe jury system has been a central of criminal trials since its inception. However, its privileged role is continuously under threat with its advantages becoming increasingly vague and its flaws becoming more conspicuous to the academic and layman alike. The ambit of the jury has eroded in civil jurisdictions while the pressures of an organised crime are combining to question the real value of jury trials in the modern society.
\nFirstly, many trials are long and complicated with a basis on fine interpretations of jurisprudence which is far beyond the jurors\u2019 reach. As a result, all the people\u2019s intellectual commitments to democracy stops at the doors of the courthouse.
\nSecondly, many jury trials take more than one day. Anyone agile and with the knowledge that the jury duty will last a long, gets around the rules and regulations. For instance, a small businessmen, a contractor, or self-employed person can risk to lose significant income and clients who get tired of waiting.
\nThirdly, anyone who is living in a major, crime-ridden jurisdiction can count on getting a jury summons like after every two years. With the many crimes in DC for instance, and such a small number of jurors, there is need for frequency to keep up with the demand.
\nFourthly, many cases are brought to court when they should have been brought and this burdens the docket by increasing the workload for everyone needlessly. As if it is not enough for the DC courts to hear cases of rape, armed robbery, murder and aggravated assault, some comical and ludicrous cases are also brought there.
\nJuries are also faced with threats. The Civil and Common Law jurisdictions have gone ahead to reduce the jury\u2019s role in the justice system. This has been through the establishment of some special courts and statutes. This was mainly to intimidate jury trials due to criminal organisations.
\nJury Selection is a difficulty in the justice system. The jury duty is compulsory for those of in states for all those above 18 years. In the United States, however, there is an influx of the non-Irish citizens yet The Law Reform Commission raises the point that these are not allowed to serve in the jury which is part of the modern society. This exception does not favour a heterogeneous jury with different ideals and viewpoints hence creating a more competent and effective jury hence should be amended.
\nThese non-national residents should be given an inclusive experience in the legal system for a participative democracy. Therefore, an effort need to be made to encourage the non-nationals to buy into our system.
\nComprehension is also a problem. This is because the laypeople cannot understand what is happening. These laypeople are forced to juggle around with complex issues which they cannot comprehend. It has been pointed out that the laypeople should engage themselves in legal gymnastics and simultaneously consider factual evidence.
\nThere is also some subjective bias. The jury is famous of prejudice which has added some immovable subjectivity to proceedings. This subjective bias has led to the reverse halo effect in which the representatives of groups are labelled with some undesirable characteristics at the expense of constructive fact.
\nThe peremptory challenge also poses a hard time to the jury system. The fact that a defendant or a plaintiff can challenge the jury without grounds is a nightmare. These challenges are mainly instituted as a mechanism to exclude non-whites from the jury. As a matter of fact, this absents some portions of the society from jury duty, and this deprives the court of vast quantity of knowledge and experience. This practice should be eliminated for this reasoning of the US Supreme court is questionable. In addition, these peremptory challenges are short of validity because it is not possible for one to obtain from a cursory investigation any accurate indications of character. What am proposing is that the whole system be scraped and we go the French way.
\nHOLD OUTS
\nHoldouts are just oddballs and misfits. They can also be people who are devoted to the principle that for any just conviction, true unanimity and not compromise is required. The lawyers and jury consultants always say that when there exists any hints of a holdout, the legal risks are high and the strategy to employ is uncertain.
\nIt is common happenings in the jury room, to have emotions spike and nerves fray. The tensions are compounded in the cases that draw great public interest such as those of murder and terrorism. Some of these include cases like that of Tyco and Astor and that of Mr. Ghailani, who faced conspiracy and murder charges as a result of the bombing of the American Embassies in East Africa in 1998. The interest of the jurors intensifies when they know that their decision is being closely followed. The Courts take it very seriously when it comes to Juror safety and issues protecting the jurors’ personal and confidential information. For any lawyer and judges, the possibility of a holdout is a legal minefield and no judge is allowed to ask jurors any details of any continuing deliberations. For special instructions, they can bring divided juries back into the courtroom which is a common practice sometimes called dynamite instructions for their purpose is to break a logjam. Under the law, such instructions, cannot require the jurors to abandon their deeply held beliefs though they can encourage open-mindedness. A mistrial is seen as a good development for a defendant for it provides him\/her with another chance to fight the case where the prosecutors have decided on a retrial at all.
\nIn the contrary, defence lawyers have said that there can be a treacherous way to press a judge to declare a mistrial in the event that there is a chance at an acquittal. Holdouts who do not waver can bring a mistrial while the one who owns up brings an acquittal.
\nAny claims of some juror misconduct in a trial are viewed with a lot of seriousness like the one given to the potential impact on the integrity of the criminal justice system and that of confidence in jury verdicts. The importance of avoiding any environment where jurors are singled out for attack and\/or subjected to threats to safety and their well-being because of individual their decisions in the process of jury deliberations is also of great concern. If it is expected that citizens will willingly serve and carry out their oaths honourably and with integrity, juror\u2019s decisions must be respected whether they are in favour of the prosecution or not. In the instances where credible information of misconduct exists, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office reviews the matter and make a request for an independent investigation after which an independent review is sought for any potential charges and prosecution. If the circumstances warrant it, this process may be altered.
\nIn the current case, State v. Arias trial, attacks on Juror 17, presented on the basis of speculation, it must stop. Some outlined process of review should be followed. This matter need to have the available information fairly assessed in order to provide any justification for the death threats.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Take-Home Exam Due in the Registrar’s Office no later than Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 5:45p.m. Instructions You are to write one well-written, well-organized memo\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7641,8827,10535,10533,10534,10531,10529,6744,10532,10530,7741],"tags":[10553,10549,10616,10615,7687,10254,10627,10104,10247,8857,10552,10295,10900,2984,3903,10548,10622,8901,10551,8907],"class_list":["post-128060","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-australia-essay-writers","category-australia-essays","category-do-my-university-assignment-for-me","category-essay-pro-dissertation-writers","category-homework-help-services-best-websites","category-i-need-help-writing-a-page-paper-assignment","category-masters-essays","category-nursing-studybay","category-pay-someone-to-write-a-paper-for-you","category-website-that-writes-assignments","category-studybay","tag-1-assignment-help-online-service-for-students-in-the-usa","tag-ai-plagiarism-free-essay-writing-tool","tag-australian-best-tutors","tag-best-trans-tutors","tag-buy-essay-uk","tag-can-someone-write-my-assignment-for-me","tag-cheap-dissertation-writer","tag-essypro","tag-help-me-write-my-dissertation","tag-help-with-writing-an-essay","tag-help-write-my-paper-ai-free","tag-homework-for-you","tag-nursing-bay","tag-nursing-essay","tag-nursing-study-bay","tag-online-essay-writers","tag-phd-essays","tag-studbay","tag-write-my-assignment-help-for-college-students","tag-write-my-essay-for-me"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128060","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=128060"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128060\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128060"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128060"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128060"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}