Tanner v. United States | |
---|---|
Argued March 31, 1987 Decided June 22, 1987 | |
Full case name | William M. Conover and Anthony R. Tanner v. United States |
Citations | 483 U.S. 107 ( more ) 107 S. Ct. 2739; 97 L. Ed. 2d 90; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2868; 55 U.S.L.W. 4942 |
Case history | |
Prior | 772 F.2d 765 (11th Cir. 1985) |
Holding | |
The lower courts were correct in denying a hearing on juror misconduct. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | O'Connor, joined by unanimous court (parts III, IV); Rehnquist, White, Powell, Scalia (parts I, II) |
Concur/dissent | Marshall, joined by Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens |
Laws applied | |
Federal Rules of Evidence § 606(b) |
Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that juror testimony could not be used to discredit or overturn a jury verdict, even if the jury had been consuming copious amounts of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine throughout the course of the trial.
After the defendant was found guilty of mail fraud, his attorneys filed several motions after they discovered that seven of the jurors drank alcohol during the noon recess. Four of them consumed between them "a pitcher to three pitchers" of beer during various recesses. [1] Of the other three, one said that, on several occasions, he observed two jurors having one or two mixed drinks during the lunch recess, and one other juror, who was also the foreperson, having a liter of wine on each of three occasions. [2] Juror Hardy also said that he and three other jurors smoked marijuana quite regularly during the trial. [2] He also said that, during the trial, he observed one juror ingest cocaine five times and another juror ingest cocaine two or three times. [2] One juror sold one-quarter pound (110 g) of marijuana to another juror during the trial, and took marijuana, cocaine, and drug paraphernalia into the courthouse. [2] One of the jurors described himself to Hardy as "flying". [3]
The court held that under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), the lower courts were correct in denying a hearing on juror misconduct. [4] The court noted that "the near-universal and firmly established common-law rule in the United States flatly prohibited the admission of juror testimony to impeach a jury verdict". [5]
A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.
A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence, make findings of fact, and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.
Jury nullification, also known in the United Kingdom as jury equity, or a perverse verdict, is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses. Nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists:
Edward "Ed" Rosenthal is an American horticulturist, author, publisher, and Cannabis grower known for his advocacy for the legalization of marijuana use. He served as a columnist for High Times Magazine during the 1980s and 1990s. He was arrested in 2002 for cultivation of cannabis by federal authorities, who do not recognize the authority of states to regulate the use of medical marijuana. He was convicted in federal court, but the conviction was overturned on appeal. Rosenthal was subsequently convicted again, but was not re-sentenced, since his original sentence had been completed.
A hung jury, also called a deadlocked jury, is a judicial jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after extended deliberation and is unable to reach the required unanimity or supermajority. A hung jury may result in the case being tried again.
Malice Green was an American resident of Detroit, Michigan who died after being assaulted by Detroit police officers Walter Budzyn and Larry Nevers on November 5, 1992. The official cause of death was ruled to be due to blunt force trauma to his head.
Bill Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States, was impeached by the United States House of Representatives of the 105th United States Congress on December 19, 1998, for "high crimes and misdemeanors". The House adopted two articles of impeachment against Clinton, with the specific charges against Clinton being lying under oath and obstruction of justice. Two other articles had been considered but were rejected by the House vote.
In law, a trial is a coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information in a tribunal, a formal setting with the authority to adjudicate claims or disputes. One form of tribunal is a court. The tribunal, which may occur before a judge, jury, or other designated trier of fact, aims to achieve a resolution to their dispute.
Jury duty or jury service is a service as a juror in a legal proceed. Different countries have different approaches to juries. Variations include the kinds of cases tried before a jury, how many jurors hear a trial, and whether the lay person is involved in a single trial or holds a paid job similar to a judge, but without legal training.
In law, unring the bell is an analogy used to suggest the difficulty of forgetting information once it is known. When discussing jury trials, the phrase is sometimes used to describe the judge's instructions to the jury to ignore inadmissible evidence or statements they have heard. It may also be used if inadmissible evidence has been brought before a jury and the judge subsequently declares a mistrial.
Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state juries may convict a defendant by a less-than-unanimous verdict in a felony criminal case. The four-justice plurality opinion of the court, written by Justice White, affirmed the judgment of the Oregon Court of Appeals and held that there was no constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. Although federal law requires federal juries to reach criminal verdicts unanimously, the Court held Oregon's practice did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury and so allowed it to continue. In Johnson v. Louisiana, a case decided on the same day, the Court held that Louisiana's similar practice of allowing criminal convictions by a jury vote of 9–3 did not violate due process or equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In the United States, jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. It has its origins in colonial America under British law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return.
A citizen's right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.
The United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding the law of criminal procedure.
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on two issues of constitutional criminal procedure. Glasser was the first Supreme Court decision to hold that the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment required the reversal of a criminal defendant's conviction if his lawyer's representation of him was limited by a conflict of interest.
Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40 (2014), was a unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court, ruling that jurors may not testify about what occurred during jury deliberations, even to expose dishonesty during jury selection or voir dire. The Court delivered its ruling on December 9, 2014.
The no-impeachment rule is a part of U.S. evidence law that generally prohibits jurors from testifying about their deliberations in an attempt to discredit a verdict. Arising in British common law, the rule has come to be implemented in Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 606(b) and in each state.
Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356 (1972), was a court case in the U.S. Supreme Court involving the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana law that allowed less-than unanimous jury verdicts to convict persons charged with a felony, does not violate the Due Process clause. This case was argued on a similar basis as Apodaca v. Oregon.
Andrew Johnson became the first president of the United States to be impeached by the United States House of Representatives on February 24, 1868 after he acted to dismiss Edwin Stanton as secretary of war in disregard for the Tenure of Office Act.
In the United States, a federal impeachment trial is held as the second stage of the United States federal government's bifurcated (two-stage) impeachment process. The preceding stage is the "impeachment" itself, held by a vote in the United States House of Representatives. Federal impeachment trials are held in the United States Senate, with the senators acting as the jurors. At the end of a completed impeachment trial, the U.S. Senate delivers a verdict. A "guilty" verdict has the effect of immediately removing an officeholder from office. After, and only after, a "guilty" verdict, the Senate has the option of additionally barring the official from ever holding federal office again, which can be done by a simple-majority vote.