Comment on this article:


(Optional. We will not publish your email address here or elsewhere.)


Maximum 5,000 characters. Character count: 0

When you submit this message, you give The Jury Expert permission to publish it on the web. As this is a professional journal, editors will publish comments that are courteous and respectful (even when in disagreement). Thanks for participating in the TJE community!

Recent Comments:

Rita Handrich comments on Jurors' Perceptions of Attorneys See the comment

Erica Anderson comments on Jurors' Perceptions of Attorneys See the comment

Marjorie Fargo comments on SJQs for White Collar Defense See the comment

Michael Brockwell comments on Packing Like a Pro See the comment

Chris O'Brien comments on Effective Voir Dire See the comment

Darla Russell comments on Jurors' Perceptions of Attorneys See the comment

Paul Luvera blogs on Effective Voir Dire See the blog post

Mitchell Thomas comments on Jurors' Perceptions of Attorneys See the comment

Brian Patterson comments on Trial Graphics on the Cheap See the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Bifurcation/Hindsight See the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Trial Graphics on the Cheap See the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Packing Like a Pro See the comment

Joshua Franklin comments on Effective Voir Dire See the comment

Annie Gough comments on Trial Graphics on the Cheap See the comment 

Matt Groebe responds to Charli Morris on Bifurcation/Hindsight See the comment

D. Montiel comments on Trial Graphics on the Cheap See the comment

Francesca Cerrato comments on Trial Graphics on the Cheap See the comment

Charli Morris comments on Bifurcation/Hindsight See the comment

Ted Brooks comments on Can the iPod Pick Your Next Jury See the comment

Sean comments on Can the iPad Pick Your Next Jury? See the comment

Frank Pray comments on How to Present Yourself in Court See the comment

Kathy Kellermann comments on Political Attack Ads (What Can We Learn?) See the comment

Joe Guastaferro comments on Do We Need Einsteins in the Jury Box? See the comment

Karen Franklin has blogged on the Psychology of Voir Dire at her blog In the News. See the blog post

Kathy Kellermann comments on Police Deception During Interrogation See the comment

Kathy Kellermann comments on Political Attack Ads (What Can We Learn?)  See the comment

Charli Morris comments on Political Attack Ads (What Can We Learn?) See the comment

Laura Dominic responds to Kathy Kellerman's comment on Gender in the Courtroom See Laura's response

Kathy Kellermann comments on Persuading with Probability See the comment

Kathy Kellermann comments on Gender in the Courtroom See the comment

Paul B. Kennedy has blogged on Gender in the Courtroom at his blog: The Defense Rests See the post

Edward Schwartz has commented on Could the iPad Pick Your Next Jury See the comment

Kathy Kellerman has commented on When Jurors Nod See the comment

Doug Keene has blogged on Working for Justice in Neshoba County at his blog: The Jury Room See the post

Phil Monte comments on SJQs for The Holy War See the comment

Dan Hull comments on Managing & Mentoring Millennials See the comment

Sean Overland comments on Out of the Shadows, Into the Jury Box See the comment

Blawg Review #283 cites Managing & Mentoring Millennials See Blawg Review #283

mikee  comments on Will It Hurt Me in Court? See the comment

Rita Handrich has blogged on Managing & Mentoring Millennials at her firm blog: The Jury Room See the post

Paul Scoptur has pointed readers of his blog (Scoptur's Law) to the new issue of The Jury Expert See the blog post

Thaddeus Hoffmeister has pointed readers of his blog (Juries) to the new issue of The Jury Expert See the blog post

Michael Drake at Strange Doctrines blog has pointed his readers to Grime and Punishment See the blog post

Roland Stark has commented on Persuading with Probability See the comment

Keith Lee has blogged on Tattoos, Tolerance, Technology and TMI at his blog: An Associate's Mind See the post

Jason Barnes has posted a link on a recent Batson ruling from the 9th Circuit See the link

The University of Texas at Austin Law School Advocacy Program recommends The Jury Expert to their law students See the Law School press release 

Karen Franklin has blogged on What We Do (& Do Not) Know About Jurors & Race See the post

Doug Keene has blogged on Emotions in the Courtroom at The Jury Room blog See the blog post

James Goulding has blogged on Tattoos, Tolerance, Technology & TMI at Mean is Out blog See the post

Doug Keene has blogged on Tattoos, Tolerance, Technology & TMI at The Jury Room blog See the blog post

Daniel Denis responds to Jason Barnes comment on Persuading with Probability See the response

Walter K. [@noblindfold] has blogged on Tattoos, Tolerance, Technology & TMI See the blog post

Jason Barnes has commented on Persuading with Probability See the comment

David Badertscher has blogged on Hate Crimes and Racial Slurs at Criminal Law Library Blog See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at idealawg blog See the blog post

Jaime and Kevin comment on East Texas Patent Trials See the comment

David Fish comments on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at idealawg blog See the blog post

Tony Duncan has pointed readers of his blog to Jurors and the Internet See the blog post

Daylight Atheism blog has posted on America Hates Atheists See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at idealawg blog See the blog post

Mark Bennett has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at Defending People blog See the blog post

'Joe Attorney' has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at Doing Justice blog See the blog post

Joe Markowitz has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Rita Handrich has pointed readers of The Jury Room blog to this issue of TJE See the blog post

John Mittelman has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Victoria Ward has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the blog post

Jason Barnes comments on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Brian Patterson comments on Biggest Bully in the Room See the comment

Todd Schlossberg comments on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

SCOTUS blog references Beneath the Robes & Behind Closed Doors See the blog post

Marjorie Fargo has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Paul Scoptur has pointed readers of his blog, Scoptur's Law to A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the post

Elie Mystal has referenced Beneath The Robes & Behind Closed Doors in Non Sequiturs at Above the Law Blog See the post

Montgomery Delaney has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Ken Broda-Bahm has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Mark Bennett has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Jessica Hoffman has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles is a Bad Idea See the comment

Thaddeus Hoffmeister has blogged on Avoiding Problems During Jury Selection in the Age of Batson at Juries Blog See the post

Ken Broda-Bahm comments on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles is a Bad Idea See the comment

Steve Schlicht comments on America Hates Atheists See the comment

Stephen G. Schwarz has cited Jurors and Technology in Trial in a post at the Faraci Lange blog See the post

David Shackelford has cited America Hates Atheists at the Shark Attack blog See the blog

Groklaw cites Practical Tools for Staying Organized in Jury Selection & Voir Dire See the post

Doug Keene has blogged on Rules Don't Apply to Me at The Jury Room blog See the post

Steven G. Pietrick has commented on From the Conference Room to the Courtroom See the comment

John Buntin has blogged on Rules Don't Apply to Me at 13th Floor blog See the post

Razib Khan has blogged on America Hates Atheists at Gene Expression blog See the post

Steven Gursten has blogged on Injured Body, Injured Mind See the blog post

Gribble the Munchkin comments on America Hates Atheists See the comment

Stuart Bechman comments on America Hates Atheists See the comment

science + religion TODAY has blogged on America Hates Atheists See the post

Hemant Mehta has blogged on America Hates Atheists at Friendly Atheist See the post

Stephanie West Allen blogs on Toying with Juror's Emotions at idealawg See the post

Marc Gray comments on America Hates Atheists See the comment

Stephanie West Allen blogs on The Rules Don't Apply to Me at idealawg See the post

Robin Hanson has cited America Hates Atheists in his blog Overcoming Bias See the post

LawyersUSAOnline has cited The Rules Don't Apply to Me See the link

Brian Patterson comments on Using Technology in Litigation See the comment

Ted Brooks comments on Using Technology in Litigation at his firm blog Court & Trial Technology See the post

'Anonymous Atheist' has commented on America Hates Atheists See the comment

Elaine Lewis comments on Goals of Witness Preparation See the comment

Charli Morris comments on "The Prep Question" See the comment

David Shafer comments on "The Prep Question" See the comment

Lee Keller King has commented on Will It Hurt Me in Court See the comment

Doug Keene has blogged at The Jury Room on Sixteen Simple Rules See the blog post

Steve Pietrick has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

Melissa Gomez has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

Adam Benforado has commented on Law on Display via Situationist Blog See the comment

John Day has blogged at Day on Torts about Jurors & the Internet See the blog post

Rita Handrich has blogged at The Jury Room on Colorism See the blog post

Philip Cave has blogged at Court-Martial Trial Practice on 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Dennis Elias has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

Paul Scoptur has pointed his blog readers to this issue of The Jury Expert See Paul's blog

Edward Schwartz has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

K_Yew has pointed his blog readers to 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Sean Overland has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

Feminist Law Profs blog wants to know where the women are. We know where

Lawyers USA has written a piece featuring Katherine James and her article on Live Communication See the article

Steven G. Pietrick has commented on Preparing for the Prep Question See the comment

David Oliver at Mass Torts: State of the Art Blog has cited 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Scott Henson of Grits for Breakfast has cited 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Julie Campanini has blogged on Out & Proud See the blog post

Grey Tesh sends readers of Palm Beach Criminal Lawyer Blog to see 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog post

Tyler Cowen sends his readers from Marginal Revolution blog to see 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See Tyler's blog

Forensic Focus Forums has begun a discussion on Law on Display See the forum posts

Book Forum has cited Don't Poke Scalia on their Omnivore page See the post

Book Forum has cited Jurors & the Internet on their Omnivore page See the post

Christina Spiesel comments on Ted Brooks' blog post regarding Law on Display See the comment

Susan Levy comments on Damages: Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the comment

Edward P. Schwartz comments on Law on Display See the comment

Karen Franklin has blogged on this issue of The Jury Expert See the blog

Sean Overland has blogged on Jurors and the Internet See the blog post

Publius comments on Enron to Broadcom See the comment

Judge John DiMotto references Jurors and the Internet on his blog See the blog

Ted Brooks has blogged on Law on Display See the blog post

Kevin Boully has blogged on 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Louisville Courier-Journal has published on article (Taser-death verdict challenged over juror's conduct) which references our Jurors & the Internet article See the Louisville Courier-Journal

Florida Bar Journal has published an article (Reining in Juror Misconduct) citing our Jurors & the Internet article See the Florida Bar Journal article

Howard Wasserman has blogged on Don't Poke Scalia at his Federal Courts blog See the blog

Ric Dexter has commented on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need See the comment

David Badertscher has blogged on Jurors & the Internet at his Criminal Law Library Blog See the blog

Phil Cave has blogged on Live Communication at his blog Court-Martial Trial Practice See the blog

Melissa M. Gomez has blogged on Jury Research for Settlement on her blog at the Legal Intelligencer See the blog

Doug Keene has blogged on this issue of The Jury Expert at his firm blog: The Jury Room See the blog

Martin G. commented on When Jurors Nod See the comment

E. Oliver commented on When Jurors Nod See the comment

Gregory Cusimano commented on Live Communication See the comment

Matt M. commented on Jurors and the Internet See the comment

W. Stuermer commented on Don't Poke Scalia See the comment

David Schwartz commented on Don't Poke Scalia See the comment

Janet commented on Don't Poke Scalia See the comment

Jason Barnes commented on When Jurors Nod See the comment

Jason Barnes commented on Jurors and the Internet See the comment

Thaddeus Hoffmeister blogged on Jurors and the Internet at his blog Juries See the blog

Adam Chandler blogged on Don't Poke Scalia at SCOTUS blog See the blog

Thaddeus Hoffmeister commented on Jurors and the Internet See the comment

Edward Schwartz has blogged on Jury Research for Settlement at the Jury Box Blog See the blog

Sean Overland has blogged on Jury Research for Settlement on his blog at Overland Consulting See the blog

T. Guthell, MD has commented on Jurors and the Internet See the comment

David Badertscher has listed our Table of Contents at his Criminal Law Library Blog See the blog

Sean Overland has blogged on Identifying Leaders See the blog

Edward Schwartz has blogged on Terror Management Theory in the Courtroom See the blog

Joseph C. Markowitz has blogged on Civil Case Mediation See the blog

Phyllis G. Pollack has blogged on Civil Case Mediation See the blog

Victoria Cooke has commented on Graphic Injury Photographs See the comment

Glenn Meyer has commented on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Paul Silver has commented on Civil Case Mediation See the comment

Wendy Saxon comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Arch Stanton comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Ted Brooks has blogged on Anthropomorphism in Technical Presentations See the blog post

Karen Franklin has blogged on Hate Crimes & Racial Slurs See the blog post

Matthew McCusker comments on Civil Case Mediation See the comment

benezra1970 comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Wendy Saxon comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Wendy Saxon comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

L.L. Stewart commented on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

benezra1970 has commented on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Phil Cave has blogged on Identifying Leaders See the blog post

Doug Keene has blogged on Affirmative Defenses in Product Liability Litigation See the blog post

Vickie Pynchon has commented on Civil Case Mediations See the comment

Cheryl Lubin has commented on Civil Case Mediations See the comment

Anne Reed has blogged on The Jury Expert's September issue See the blog post

Paul Scoptur has blogged on Civil Case Mediations See the blog post

Kevin Boully has blogged on Gender & Assault Weapons See the blog post

Edward Schwartz has blogged on Identifying Leaders See the blog post

Ken Broda-Bahm has blogged on Jury Damage Awards in Recession See the blog post

Rita Handrich has commented on Hate Crimes & Racial Slurs Read the comment

Phillip Miller has blogged about Identifying Leaders See the blog post

Charli Morris comments on Impact of Graphic Injury Photographs Read the comment

Diane Levin has done a blog post on Observations in Civil Mediation See the blog post

Cameron Reed has blogged about Narcissism in Gen Y See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has done a blog post on Observations in Civil Mediation See the blog post

Edward Schwartz comments on Will It Hurt Me in Court Read the comment

Cheryl Lubin comments on From the Conference Room to the Courtroom Read the comment

Jim Brock comments on Lights, Camera, Action! Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Lights, Camera Action! Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Jury Damage Awards in Times of Recession Read the comment

Sean Overland comments on the Book Review of The Juror Factor Read the comment

Dennis Elias comments on Jury Damage Awards in Times of Recession Read the comment

Gayle Herde comments on Using Your EAR in Voir Dire Read the comment

Bob Schiffmann comments on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need Read the comment

Alison K. Bennett comments on Using Your EAR in Voir Dire Read the comment

Ted Brooks replies to a comment on Jurors and Technology Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Jurors and Technology in Trial Read the comment

Kelley Tobin comments on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need Read the comment

Kacy Miller comments on Jurors and Technology in Trial Read the comment

Charli Morris comments on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need Read the comment

Carol Phillips comments on Gen Y & Narcissism Prevalence Read the comment

Diane Wyzga comments on Juror Stress Read the comment

Edward P. Schwartz comments on Turning Expert Witnesses Into Teachers Read the comment

Phillip Miller comments on Turning Timelines Into Plotlines Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Turning Timelines Into Plotlines Read the comment

Phillip Miller comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Ric Dexter comments on Turning Timelines Into Plotlines Read the comment

Stacy Fergurson comments on Grime & Punishment Read the comment

Jeri Kagel comments on Turning Timelines Into Plotlines Read the comment

Rita Handrich comments on Grime & Punishment Read the comment

Sean Overland responds to Jeri Kagel's comment Read the response

George Kich comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Kacy Miller responds to comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Laura Rochelois comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Sonia Chopra comments on Grime & Punishment Read the comment

Bob Kaufman comments on Injured Body, Injured Mind Read the comment

Steve Laird comments on Injured Body, Injured Mind Read the comment

Steve Laird comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Jeri Kagel comments on Anti-Gay Bias in the Courtroom Read the comment

Dave Zehner comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Sean Overland responds to Pat McEvoy's comment on Anti-Gay Bias in the Courtroom Read the comment

Brian Bornstein responds to Steven Gursten's comment on Injured Body, Injured Mind Read the comment

Jason Barnes responds to Ted Brooks' comment on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Ralph Mongeluzo comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Ted Brooks comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Diane Wyzga responds to Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Jason Barnes responds to Patrick Norha's comment on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Patrick Norha comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Douglas L. Keene comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Bruce A. Beal comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Ken Broda-Bahm comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Pat McEvoy comments on Anti-Gay Bias in the Courtroom Read the comment

Steven Gursten comments on Injured Body, Injured Mind Read the comment

Philip Monte comments on Ethical Issues in Racial Profiling Read the comment

Valerie Hans comments on the book review: The American Jury.
Read the comment
Elaine Lewis comments on The Preparation of Narcissistic Witnesses.
Read the comment

 




Comments 0 | Rating 0

 

 

Presumed Prejudice,

Actual Prejudice, No Prejudice:

Skilling v. U.S.

 

Thaddeus Hoffmeister1

 

Thaddeus Hoffmeister is an Associate Professor at the University of Dayton School of Law. He primarily teaches in the areas of criminal law. The focus of his research includes petit juries, grand juries and National Security law. Besides teaching, he edits a blog discussing Juries.

 

Introduction

 

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided Skilling v. U.S., a 110-page opinion written by Justice Ginsberg.2 As some may recall, the case stemmed from the 2001 bankruptcy and ultimate collapse of Enron Corporation. At the time, it was the largest bankruptcy in the history of the United States. Jeffrey Skilling, the former CEO of Enron, was convicted in federal district court in Houston, Texas (where the former headquarters of Enron was located) of 19 fraud-related criminal counts; however, he was acquitted on nine other counts. He was sentenced to 292 months of imprisonment.


In Skilling, the two main arguments before the Supreme Court were: (a) did the pretrial publicity associated with defendant's trial prevent him from receiving a fair trial; and (b) is the Honest Services doctrine found in 18 USC §§1343 and 1346 (Mail/Wire Fraud) unconstitutionally vague? With respect to the first question, which is the focus of this article, the Supreme Court held that the defendant "did not establish that a presumption of juror prejudice arose or that actual bias infected the jury that tried him." As to the second question, the Supreme Court redefined the Honest Services doctrine to include only bribery and kickbacks. This resulted in the case being remanded to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for further review.


Initial Trial and Appeal

 

The pre-trial publicity issue was first raised in November 2004 when the defendant, prior to the start of his trial, requested a change of venue arguing that "hostility toward him in Houston, coupled with extensive pretrial publicity, had poisoned potential jurors." As part of his change of venue motion, the defendant submitted, "hundreds of news reports detailing Enron's downfall, as well as affidavits from experts he engaged portraying community attitudes in Houston in comparison to other potential venues." The trial judge denied the motion finding that the pretrial publicity was insufficient to create a presumption that the defendant would not receive a fair trial. The judge noted that the media coverage "had been objective and unemotional, and the facts of the case were neither heinous nor sensational." Moreover the judge asserted, "effective voir dire would detect juror bias."


The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard the defendant's appeal, partially agreed with the defendant and found a presumption of juror prejudice based on: (a) the negative media coverage; (b) co-defendant's guilty plea; and (c) large number of victims in the greater Houston area. The 5th Circuit, however, did not overrule the trial court because it found that the presumption of jury prejudice had been rebutted by the jury selection process. Specifically, the 5th Circuit held that "the volume and negative tone of media coverage generated by Enron's collapse created a presumption of juror prejudice....however, that presumption is rebuttable, the court examined the voir dire, found it 'proper and thorough,' and [that] the District Court had empanelled an impartial jury."


Presumed Prejudice

 

In deciding Skilling, the Supreme Court further divided the defendant's fair trial argument into two distinct questions: (a) "did the District Court err by failing to move the trial to a different venue based on a presumption of prejudice?" and (b) "did actual prejudice contaminate Skilling's jury?" With respect to the first question, the Supreme Court, unlike the 5th Circuit, found that the defendant had not established a presumption of juror prejudice. The question of whether presumed jury prejudice was rebuttable was left unanswered by the majority opinion. Justice Alito, however, in his concurring opinion did address this issue. He stated presumed jury prejudice was rebuttable and that "[c]areful voir dire can often ensure the selection of impartial jurors even where pretrial media coverage has generated much hostile community sentiment."


In finding no presumed jury prejudice, the Supreme Court distinguished the facts of Skilling from those in Rideau v. Louisiana,3 which established the precedent for presumed jury prejudice. In Rideau, the defendant, who was charged with murder, had his jail cell confession televised three times to large local audiences. Since so many potential jurors from the small local community had viewed the confession, defense counsel for Rideau moved for a change of venue. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant was convicted of capital murder. In 1963, the Supreme Court overturned the defendant's conviction finding that the television confession along with the kangaroo court proceedings violated the defendant's due process rights. In Rideau, the Supreme Court, due to the presumed jury prejudice, found it unnecessary to even "examine a particularized transcript of the voir dire."


In differentiating Skilling from Rideau, the court drew the following distinctions.

 

(1) Unlike Rideau who was tried in a small local community, Skilling was tried in the 4th largest city in the U.S. Thus, in Skilling, there was a much greater likelihood of finding impartial jurors who had not been subject to the large volume of pre-trial publicity.

 

(2) The local news stories about Enron and Skilling, although not necessarily favorable, were not blatantly prejudicial like in Rideau.

 

(3) There was approximately a 4-year gap between Enron's bankruptcy and Skilling's trial.

 

(4) Skilling was acquitted on nine counts.

 

The Supreme Court went on to say that the 5th Circuit presumed juror prejudice based primarily on the magnitude and negative tone of the media attention directed at Enron. But "pretrial publicity--even pervasive, adverse publicity--does not inevitably lead to an unfair trial."4 The Supreme Court made it clear that it wanted to reserve instances of "presumed prejudice" to those rare extreme occasions.

 

Actual Prejudice

 

After dispatching the defendant's argument concerning presumed jury prejudice, the Supreme Court moved on to the issue of actual jury prejudice. Here, the defendant asserted that the "[v]oir dire...did not adequately detect and defuse juror bias." This too was rejected by the Supreme Court, which held that the jury selection process as a whole to include voir dire was adequate to seat unbiased jurors. The majority made note of the 77-question 14-page juror questionnaire drafted primarily by defense counsel that was sent to 400 potential jurors. Of the approximately 374 people that responded to the questionnaire, the judge granted hardship exemptions to about 90 individuals and excused another 119 for cause.


As for the actual voir dire, the trial judge questioned potential jurors both individually and as a group. In addition, the judge permitted counsel for both sides the opportunity to ask a limited number of follow-up questions. The trial judge also afforded the defendant two additional peremptory challenges. The total time for voir dire was approximately five hours, which was highlighted by the defendant in his appeal. The Supreme Court, however, noted that there was "[n]o hard-and-fast formula dictat[ing] the necessary depth or breadth of voir dire." Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated that when pretrial publicity is an issue "primary reliance on the judgment of the trial court makes [especially] good sense."


Dissent

 

The dissent written by Justice Sotomayor focused on actual jury prejudice as she and the other dissenters appeared to be in agreement with the majority on the lack of presumed jury prejudice. Not surprisingly, the dissent painted a much different picture of the pretrial publicity that occurred prior to the trial calling it "massive in volume and caustic in tone." And, unlike the majority, the dissent pointed out numerous deficiencies in voir dire ranging from inadequate inquiry by the trial judge to the limited ability of the attorneys to ask follow-up questions of potential jurors. The dissent found that "the District Court's inquiry lacked the necessary thoroughness and left serious doubts about whether the jury empanelled...was capable of rendering an impartial decision." In addition, the dissent relying on Irvin v. Dowd5 was less willing than the majority to accept the "jurors' promise of fairness" at face value.


Finally, the dissent called into question the total time spent on voir dire noting that the "5-hour voir dire was manifestly insufficient to identify and remove biased jurors" given the "extraordinary circumstances" surrounding the case. By way of comparison, other high-profile trials have had a much more extended voir dire e.g., Timothy McVeigh (18 days), Zacarias Moussaoui (14 days) and Dennis Kozlowski (7 days). These examples of extended voir dire occurred even after several of the aforementioned defendants had their trials moved.


Takeaways

 

There are several important concepts to take away from Skilling. First, trial courts receive significant deference in deciding whether a juror can be fair, and appellate courts are hesitant to overrule trial courts on this issue. Second, the presumed jury prejudice standard is very high and reserved for those rare situations like Rideau. Third, the length of voir dire in and of itself is not determinative of whether an impartial jury has been empanelled. In deciding this issue, the court is going to examine the entire jury selection process. Thus, juror questionnaires have gained even more value because they can make up for a truncated voir dire. In fact, the Supreme Court went so far as to say that "[t]he questionnaires confirmed that, whatever community prejudice existed in Houston generally, Skilling's jurors were not under its sway."


Fourth and probably most interesting was the role of the justices' litigation experience or lack thereof on the holding of Skilling. According to one attorney who wrote a brief on behalf of the defendant, "[i]t is disconcerting to see the majority working so hard to demonstrate that the prudent course of action--a venue transfer--was not the better choice, especially when the only justice who has experience both as a district judge and with voir dire in high-profile cases is pointing out just how wrong things went in Mr. Skilling's trial."6


Some questions left unanswered by Skilling include whether or not presumed jury prejudice is ever rebuttable. The defendants argued that it couldn't be rebutted. Justice Alito, however, in his concurring opinion seems to think it can, but this issue was not taken up by the majority. This question may go unanswered for some time as cases like Skilling are rare and may become even more so in the future because the media saturation level found in Rideau is difficult to replicate in the Digital Age with so many various methods by which to obtain news.


Endnotes

 

1Thaddeus Hoffmeister is a law professor and serves as editor of a blog dedicated to juries: www.juries.typepad.com

 

2 Skilling v. U.S., 561 U.S. __ (2010)

 

3 Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963)

 

4 Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539 (1976)

 

5 Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1960)

 

6 Tony Mauro, In 4 Key Rulings, Supreme Court Limits Fraud Statutes' Reach, National Law Journal, June 25, 2010.

 

 

 

Citation for this article: The Jury Expert, 2010, 22(4), 57-60.

 

 


Full Issue   Full Article   Send to a Friend   Rate this article:


Comment on this article:


(Optional. We will not publish your email address here or elsewhere.)


Maximum 5,000 characters. Character count: 0

When you submit this message, you give The Jury Expert permission to publish it on the web. As this is a professional journal, editors will publish comments that are courteous and respectful (even when in disagreement). Thanks for participating in the TJE community!


Publication Information

The Jury Expert is now on Twitter (@thejuryexpert)! Follow us for daily news relevant to improving litigation advocacy, understanding jury behavior, resources that aid your practice, and sometimes, stuff that's just plain fun.
http://www.twitter.com/thejuryexpert

The Jury Expert [ISSN: 1943-2208] is published bimonthly by the:
American Society of Trial Consultants
1941 Greenspring Drive
Timonium, MD 21093
Phone: (410) 560-7949
Fax: (410) 560-2563
http://www.astcweb.org/

Editors of The Jury Expert
Rita R. Handrich, PhD — Editor

Kevin R. Boully, PhD — Associate Editor
 

The Jury Expert logo was designed in 2008 by:
Vince Plunkett of Persuasium Consulting

The publisher of The Jury Expert is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. The accuracy of the content of articles included in The Jury Expert is the sole responsibility of the authors, not of the publication. The publisher makes no warranty regarding the accuracy, integrity, or continued validity of the facts, allegations or legal authorities contained in any public record documents provided herein. Authors retain copyright of their written work. Author supplied graphics which illustrate technology or design ideas are considered the intellectual property of those authors. The Jury Expert itself is copyrighted by the American Society of Trial Consultants (ASTC).