Article Title
Party's Over: Admissibility of Post-Trial Juror Testimony Should Depend on the Nature of the Conduct
Abstract
What do you call a weeklong period in which you and a handful of acquaintances drink alcohol every day at lunch, sleep though the afternoons, smoke marijuana and ingest a couple lines of cocaine on occasion? You call it the time when a jury convicted Anthony Tanner and William Conover of conspiracy to defraud the United States and commit various acts of mail fraud. Under a current rule of evidence, which precludes juror testimony to impeach a verdict except on extraneous prejudicial information, juror intoxication is not an external influence about which jurors may testify. A new test for the admissibility of post-trial juror testimony should be adopted so that juror testimony regarding jurors’ consumption of drugs and alcohol during breaks can be received.
Recommended Citation
Justin Gillett,
Comment,
Party's Over: Admissibility of Post-Trial Juror Testimony Should Depend on the Nature of the Conduct,
45
U. Mich. J. L. Reform Caveat
34
(2012).
Available at:
https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr_caveat/vol45/iss1/9
Citation Note
This Comment was originally cited as Volume 1 of the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Online. Volumes 1, 2, and 3 of MJLR Online have been renumbered 45, 46, and 47 respectively. These updated Volume numbers correspond to their companion print Volumes. Additionally, the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Online was renamed Caveat in 2015.