free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

gaubin · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 29

I found this court case a little easier to understand. I think the Supreme Court Case help sheet was really nice to have before we read another court case. From what I understand is that the Supreme Court was split on the right decision for the court case. On one side there was Justice O'Connor who delivered the majority opinion of the court but on the other side there were a few dissenters who wrote a court case against what Justice O'Connor believed. The dissenters were Justice Marshall, Brennan, Blackmun and Stevens. The Supreme Court was ruling on a case where two people, Tanner and Conover were charged with mail fraud. But after they were convicted Tanner's attorney got a visit from one of the jurors claiming that during breaks in the trial, the jurors were consuming alcohol. Later another juror confessed to consuming alcohol and that other jurors had also been high during the trial. So I think the people who had been convicted of mail fraud petitioned to have the jurors interviewed and have a new trial. Their request was denied and the conviction stood so Tanner appealed to the Supreme Court. What Justice O'Connor thought was that the conviction of mail fraud should stand because of the law Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) which covers the differences between an internal and external influence. An external influence I think would be reading about the crime and evidence that was found before a trial had started and then being on the jury. The juror was probably influenced before the trial started so that would be unconstitutional because everyone has the right to a fair and impartial jury. But an internal influence is not unconstitutional. So Justice O'Connor thought the conviction should stick because "however severe their effect and improper their use, drugs or alcohol voluntarily ingested by a juror seems no more an "outside influence" than a virus, poorly prepared food, or a lack of sleep..." (97) On the other side though Justice Marshall is saying that even if the alcohol and drugs were not an external influence, which I think he thinks they are, the abuse of those things would be unconstitutional in court because of the sixth amendment. A person would not receive an impartial and fair trial if the jurors were falling asleep, drunk and high. So he thinks that the people convicted of mail fraud should have the right to another trial. "They are seeking to determine whether the jury that heard their case behaved in a manner consonant with the minimum requirement of the Sixth Amendment. If we deny them this opportunity, the jury system may survive, but the constitutional guarantee on which it is based will become meaningless. I dissent." (99) In the end Tanner did not have a new trial right?

aegilman2011 · Joined: 16 Nov 2010 Posts: 4

Wow, Marshall's dissenting opinion was beautifully crafted. Especially after O'Connor's majority opinion which I felt was poor, and that's not just because I disagree with her/the majorities ideas. Basically everything I was thinking after I read O'Connor's piece, was eloquently stated in that of Marshall's. This case is interesting because it's about the judicial system, specifically, the legality of juror testimony as well as the right to an impartial (in this case competent) jury. (6th amendment) So here is a simplified version of what I believe to be the major/significant ideas of both sides of the Supreme Court.

Majority Opinion

They are afraid to allow a re-trial for the precedent it will set concerning admission of juror testimony to impeach a jury verdict. Even though the sort of (but not really) acknowledge that drug and alcohol usage by a juror could severely threaten the right to an impartial and competent jury (it's hard to argue that a drunk jury is fit to try your case but they compare it to going to sleep at night so clearly they do make that argument) they fear that by allowing a re-trial would not be worth the RISK/consequence of that decision/precedence set. What is that RISK? Well, O'Connor believes that their would be an onslaught of people appealing cases based on juror conduct which would undermine the judicial system b/c then it gets into nuance...we must then make laws like we have made to address attendance at CSW only to address what constitutes juror misconduct.e.g. is going to bed too late juror misconduct? How about a recent divorce? These will affect their ultimate decision right? I agree it gets dicey...but that's why we pay the Supreme Court Justices and Congress the big bucks.

Minority Opinion
I agree with Marshall that "in directing district courts to ignore sworn allegations that jurors engaged in gross and debilitating misconduct, this Court denigrates the precious right to a competent jury." And I believe the Court has the ability to "differentiate between the intoxicants involved in this case and minor indispositions not affecting juror competency. And I must end with Marshall's beautiful final words. "They are seeking to determine whether the jury that heard their case behaved in a manner consonant with the minimum requirements of the 6th amendment. If we deny them this opportunity, the jury system may survive, but the constitutional guarantee on which it is based will become meaningless."

The RISK IS WORTH IT.

Free Forum