The Gideons and the Gallows: Against the "Typical Juror" Standard in Capital Cases (original) (raw)

2007, Case Western Reserve law review

See 3 CHRISTOPHER B. MUELLER & LAIRD C. KIRKPATRICK, FEDERAL EVIDENCE § 248 (2d. ed 1994). s This may not be the attorneys' fault. Actual effect testimony may come from questions not designed to adduce it. A juror, in describing their experience in the jury room will likely include details that describe the actual effect of extraneous information. See Fields v. Brown, 431 F.3d 1186, 1207 (9th Cir. 2005) ("[Defendant] presented a number of juror declarations that the district court ultimately struck to the extent that the information contained in them was inadmissible under Rule 606(b)."); McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1308 (11 th Cir. 2005) (juror testimony showed that readings from the bible and prayers merely encouraged juror to take their responsibility seriously); People v. Wadle, 77 P.3d 764, 771 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003) ("In summary, we discern a reasonable possibility that the introduction of extraneous information about Paxil, in direct violation of the court's denial of the same request by the jury, may well have influenced the verdict."). 9 FED. R. EVID. 606(b). 10 See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 222 (1976) (plurality opinion) (White & Rehnquist, JJ., Burger, C.J.) (arguing that mercy in capital cases involves "factors too intangible to write into a statute"). Some object to this feature of capital sentencing because it deviates from the "rule of law" when its protection is arguably needed most. For a defense of this feature,