Criminal Nuggets | A Criminal Law Podcast
About This Show
Smart lawyers know the caselaw. Here, practicing attorneys are injected with all the latest criminal nuggets of valuable legal information. Listeners walk into criminal court immune from ignorance on the latest decisions.
The tidbits and key points Illinois appellate judges are making are no longer hidden in voluminous text. For the first time in their careers, practitioners don't have to invest the enormous amounts of time usually required to sift through hundreds of pages of legal text. Now, their ears serve as the portals to vast, instant knowledge.
Audio law learning not only will make you the smartest lawyer on the case, you will also have fun! And its all FREE.
Most Recent Episode
Racial Bigotry In The Jury | Should The Rules Allow It?
1 day ago
Should the rules allow judges to do something about bigotry that's discovered during jury deliberations? [add video] Your browser does not support the audio element. The recent opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, SCOTUS (March 2017) poses a dilemma for trial judges. What to do when it becomes apparent that a bigot was allowed to deliberate in a criminal case? What Happened The defendant was convicted by jury trial in Colarado of sexaually contact with minors. Two jurors told defense counsel that, during deliberations, another juror had expressed anti-Hispanic bias toward petitioner and petitioner’s alibi witness. Defendant’s counsel reported this to the court and, with the court’s supervision, obtained sworn affidavits from the two jurors. Here are some of things the third juror (biased juror) told the other jurors: ● He “believed the defendant was guilty because, in the biased juror’s experience as an ex-law enforcement officer, Mexican men had a bravado that caused them to believe they could do whatever they wanted with women.” ● Dude said Mexican men are physically controlling of women because of their sense of entitlement, and further stated, “I think he did it because he’s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want.” ● The biased juror further explained that, in his experience, “nine times out of ten Mexican men were guilty of being aggressive toward women and young girls.” ● Finally, the guy said that he did not find petitioner’s alibi witness credible because, among other things, the witness was “an illegal.” Ultimately, though, the judge didn't do anything about this bigotry in the jury deliberation room. The reason was because of something called the... The "No-Impeachment" Rule A general rule has evolved to give substantial protection to verdict finality and to assure jurors that, once their verdict has been entered, it will not later be called into question based on the comments or conclusions they expressed during deliberations. This principle, itself centuries old, is often referred to as the "no-impeachment" rule. Origins of the Rule The original idea behind the rule was that a juror could not “impeach” their verdict by talking about their deliberation. So the rule di