MENU

Juries

The Juror Dishonesty Case

Short video with Rachel Paulose discussing Warger v. Shauers
Rachel K. Paulose October 08, 2014

Does Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) permit a party moving for a new trial based on juror dishonesty during voir dire to introduce juror testimony about statements made during deliberations that tend to show the alleged dishonesty? Former U.S. Attorney, Rachel Paulose, explains Warger v. Shauers.

Residual Class Action Awards: Cy Pres - Podcast

Litigation Practice Group Podcast
Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Theodore H. Frank March 21, 2014

gavel money

Cy pres (from the French cy pres comme —“as near as possible”) originated in the trust context, but has more recently been applied to class action litigation, as courts try to determine what to do with sometimes significant amounts of settlement funds remaining after all identified plaintiff awards have been made.  In recent decades, courts have agreed to award such remaining funds to third party recipients who, while not parties to the underlying suits, are deemed worthy by the court.  Sometimes, the courts have selected these third party recipients based on recommendations from the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.  What are the legal underpinnings for such awards to entities or people not party to the underlying case?  What are the policy considerations in making or prohibiting such awards?  These and other questions were discussed by our experts.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Vanderbilt University Law School
  • Mr. Theodore H. Frank, Founder and President, Center for Class Action Fairness and Adjunct Fellow, Manhattan Institute Center for Legal Policy

[Listen now!]

Alleyne v. United States - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 6-24-13 featuring Ryan Scott
Ryan Scott June 24, 2013

Ryan ScottOn June 17, 2013 the Supreme Court announced its decision in Alleyne v. United States. The question here was whether the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in Harris v. United States--that the Constitution does not require a jury to determine facts used to increase a mandatory minimum sentence--should be overruled.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court held by a vote of 5-4 that any fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence for a crime is an “element” that must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt.  Accordingly the Court overruled its earlier decision in Harris, vacated the judgment of the lower court, and remanded Alleyne’s case for further proceedings.  Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined Justice Thomas’s opinion as to Parts I, III–B, III–C, and IV, and Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan further joined Parts II and III–A.  

Justice Sotomayor also filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan joined.  Justice Breyer filed a separate opinion concurring in part and in the judgment.  Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Kennedy.  Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion.   

To discuss the case, we have Ryan Scott, who is an Associate Professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

[Listen now!]

Alleyne v. United States - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 2-4-13 featuring Ryan Scott
Ryan Scott January 23, 2013

Ryan ScottOn January 14, 2013 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Alleyne v. United States. The question here is whether the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in Harris v. United States--that the Constitution does not require a jury to determine facts used to increase a mandatory minimum sentence--should be overruled.

To discuss the case, we have Ryan Scott, who is an Associate Professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

[Listen now!]

Blueford v. Arkansas - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 05-25-12 featuring McGregor Scott
McGregor Scott May 25, 2012

SCOTUScastOn May 24, 2012, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Blueford v. Arkansas.  This case involved a state court jury that had announced it was unanimous against guilt on charges of capital and first-degree murder, but ultimately deadlocked on a manslaughter charge.  A mistrial was then declared and the jury discharged; there was no entry of a formal verdict.  The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited the prosecutors from trying the defendant a second time on the capital and first-degree murder charges.

In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held by a vote of 6-3 that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not protect the defendant from being retried on the capital and first-degree murder charges.  Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, and Alito joined the Chief Justice’s opinion.  Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.

To discuss the case, we have McGregor Scott, who is a Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP.