Tanner v. U.S.: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=U.S. Supreme Court |subject=Evidence |case_treatment=No |facts=Tanner is convicted. Jurors come forward and say jurors were partying during deliber...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|court=U.S. Supreme Court | |court=U.S. Supreme Court | ||
|subject=Evidence | |subject=Evidence | ||
|facts=Tanner is convicted. Jurors come forward and say jurors were partying during deliberations. Tanner wants to impeach verdict on appeal. | |facts=Tanner is convicted. Jurors come forward and say jurors were partying during deliberations. Tanner wants to impeach verdict on appeal. | ||
|holding=Follow Rule 606(b): No juror may testify about jury deliberations to impeach the verdict that the jury has reached. | |holding=Follow Rule 606(b): No juror may testify about jury deliberations to impeach the verdict that the jury has reached. |
Latest revision as of 03:43, July 14, 2023
Tanner v. U.S. | |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
---|---|
Citation | |
Date decided |
Facts
Tanner is convicted. Jurors come forward and say jurors were partying during deliberations. Tanner wants to impeach verdict on appeal.
Holding
Follow Rule 606(b): No juror may testify about jury deliberations to impeach the verdict that the jury has reached.
- The evidence (jurors committing felonies) is INADMISSIBLE
Reasons
We have faith and trust in the jury in the back end (i.e., their verdict stands)
- We actively don’t want the jury to explain reasoning/mess-ups
- Because of this, we have to be particularly careful what we show them on the front end