Opinion ID: 1349791
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Extraneous Influences; Jury Taint

Text: Defendants who choose a jury trial have an absolute right to a fair and impartial jury. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968); People v. Tyburski, 445 Mich. 606, 618, 518 N.W.2d 441 (1994). The defendants argue that they were denied this right by a combination of prejudicial publicity surrounding the case and instances of extraneous influences on the jury during the trial. I will focus on what I believe to be the two most troubling of these claims: jury exposure to the movie Malcolm X and to media reports during the trial of existing contingency plans in case of rioting after the verdict. Before examining these claims of jury taint, I shall review the general principles and analysis applicable to determining claims of extraneous influences on jury verdicts.