After they rule against you, leave jurors alone

I hate the idea of a lawyer being able to attack a juror after an adverse jury verdict even when the lawyer thinks a juror lied during jury selection. The Supreme Court does too.

For the unanimous opinion of the Court, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, see Warger v. Shauers (Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) precludes a party seeking a new trial from using one juror’s affidavit of what another juror said in deliberations to demonstrate the other juror’s dishonesty during voir dire).

Justice S. shows her sensitivity to Justice Scalia’s hatred of legislative history, and her sense of humor as well. She wrote: “For those who consider legislative history relevant, here it confirms that this choice of language was no accident.” Slip. op. at 7. I celebrate unanimous opinions, particularly when (1) they are clearly right and (2) deal with the federal rules. Justice Sotomayor knows how to obtain unanimity, and that’s good for those of us who toil in the corn fields.

RGK

As always, thanks to Howard Bashman and How Appealing.

A sigh of relief

This morning, via How Appealing, I see a New York Times article reporting, almost as if it were a bad thing, that the Supreme Court has reached unanimous agreement in 60% of its cases so far this term.  For my day job, I don’t care which way Supreme Court cases go so long as I don’t have to read more than one opinion.*

RGK

*However, I confess that I do enjoy learning about the super glorious meaning of  life from Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia’s warm response thereto.

%d bloggers like this: