We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Who Watches the Jurors? The Changing Limitations on Juries and Their Activities Outside of the Courtroom.
- Authors
Locke, Madeline
- Abstract
In United States v. Esso, Defendant, George Esso (Esso), was convicted of two charges arising from a mortgage fraud scheme. During his trial, the jury was allowed to take home a copy of the indictment to read overnight, despite objections from Esso. Esso was convicted on all counts and appealed, claiming that he was denied a fair trial pursuant to the Sixth Amendment and by extension denied his Fifth Amendment right to Due Process. As a matter of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that so long as jury deliberations have begun and appropriate cautionary instructions are provided, permitting the jury to take an indictment home overnight does not deprive a defendant of a fair trial. The court reasoned that the jury was given clear limiting instructions on what was allowed, and more importantly not allowed, when reading the indictment in their homes. The court held that the ease of access to outside information for jurors via technology and the Internet is a marginal additional risk and did not outweigh the benefits of alleviating the busy schedule of the courts. Therefore, despite decades of practice to the contrary, the court upheld Esso's conviction. Increased ease of access to this type of information is precisely why courts should be even more cautious about letting trial documents outside the regulated confines of the courtroom. Specific provisions of the Constitution and the carefully worded rules of evidence were put in place for a reason: to ensure that a trial is as fair as possible and that jurors have not only come to a correct decision, but a just and impartial decision as well. The Second Circuit dismissed this unprecedented decision as being a minor change to improve efficiency, relying on the jurors' honesty and integrity to justify their reasoning. Despite the court's cautioning that this holding should not be treated as a general endorsement of letting a jury take court materials home, two cases have already relied on Esso to similarly justify allowing the jury to take various documents home to read overnight. The classic "slippery slope " argument has never been more appropriate than in describing the potential problems this precedent will cause for future criminal courts and defendants.
- Subjects
UNITED States; LEGAL status of jurors; ESSO, George; RIGHT to trial by jury; CRIMINAL courts; DUE process of law; UNITED States. Constitution. 6th Amendment; ACTIONS &; defenses (Law)
- Publication
New England Journal on Criminal & Civil Confinement, 2015, Vol 41, Issue 2, p325
- ISSN
0740-8994
- Publication type
Article