Do a potential juror’s lies to get on a jury have any bearing on the trial verdict? What if she “failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire?” What if her lies had essentially nothing to do with the crimes committed or the parties involved?
Those are the questions facing a Federal Court in Manhattan as it attempts to sort through the conundrum caused by juror Catherine Conrad in the United States v. Daugerdas white collar criminal case. From law firm Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer:
“Despite the egregious facts, the defendants’ challenge to the verdict is a foray into notably hostile legal territory. Courts are understandably loath to countenance post-verdict attacks based on juror misconduct because of concerns about finality and juror privacy. Accordingly, the key Supreme Court decision on the issue holds that to warrant a new trial a defendant must show that the juror failed to honestly answer a material question during jury selection and that a correct answer would have provided a valid basis for challenging the juror for cause. Subsequent cases finding that this standard has been met are few and far between.”
Read the full update, Jurors Behaving Badly, Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer, P.C.»