Jury Flashcards
When should the inadequacy of instruction objection be made?
Before the jury retires. Retirement of jury refers to the proceeding of the jury to the jury room to consider their verdict and for deliberation. Jury Retires after the reception of evidence, arguments of counsel, and instructions by the court.
What must a judge do if he overhears a juror say that they didn’t understand the jury’s instructions?
Order a new trial and not file an appeal or notify all attorneys.
What must a judge do if he overhears a juror say that they didn’t understand the jury’s instructions?
Order a new trial and not file an appeal or notify all attorneys.
When may a party requests a jury trial for equity damages in federal court?
Ejectment cases.
Whether judicial notice is effective for a DF past crime?
Under certain circumstances, a witness may be impeached by proof of conviction of a crime under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 609. The fact that the witness (including a defendant who testifies in a criminal case) has been convicted of a crime may usually be proved by either eliciting an admission on direct or cross-examination or by the record of conviction.
Under FRE 801(d)(2), a statement by an opposing party (traditionally known as an “admission by a party-opponent”) is not hearsay. Under this Rule, when the opposing party’s statement is offered against that same opposing party and was made in either an individual or representative capacity, it is admissible.
Judicial notice is when a judge accepts a fact as true even though no evidence to prove it has been offered. A fact may be judicially noticed if it is not subject to reasonable dispute and either: (i) it’s generally known in the community; or (ii) it’s capable of immediate and accurate verification by use of easily-available sources that are indisputably accurate (such as information in encyclopedias, almanacs, etc.).
D is correct. This question asks, which mode of proof would be least likely to render the defendant’s prior conviction admissible? Because the conviction is not generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the federal court, and the telephone call to the clerk of the state court, which is hearsay, can reasonably be questioned, judicial notice of the conviction is the least likely method available to prove the conviction.
A is incorrect. A record of a prior criminal conviction is a proper mode of proof for offering that conviction into evidence, and a certified copy of a conviction is self-authenticating, meaning it requires no testimonial sponsor to allow for its admissibility.
B is incorrect. A witness, like the plaintiff in this question, can properly testify regarding matters within his firsthand knowledge. If the plaintiff were present at the time of the defendant’s sentencing in state court, the plaintiff may testify to that event.
C is incorrect. Testimony by a witness that the defendant made an oral admission regarding his prior conviction would be admissible as a non-hearsay admission by a party-opponent.
Whether Prior jury service in a case involving a party renders the witness incompetent?
Prior jury service in a case involving a party does not render the witness incompetent. The limitations placed on a juror’s service only apply to the immediate case the juror is sitting on and inquiries into the validity of the verdict. Prior jury service does not foreclose the possibility of that juror ever testifying in another case involving the parties. The best reason for sustaining the objection at hand is that the probative value of the question is outweighed by the question’s tendency to mislead the jury.
What are the requirements for a jury trial?
The Seventh Amendment provides that in suits at common law, the right of a trial by jury shall be guaranteed. This provision only applies to federal trials and has never been applicable to state trials. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 38(a) provides that the right of a trial by jury as declared in the Seventh Amendment is preserved for the parties. FRCP 38(b) requires that a party who wishes for a jury trial on a particular issue file a demand within 14 days after the service of the last pleading directed to that issue. FRCP 38(c) states, "In its demand, a party may specify the issues that it wishes to have tried by a jury; otherwise, it is considered to have demanded a jury trial on all the issues so triable. If the party has demanded a jury trial on only some issues, any other party may—within 14 days after being served with the demand or within a shorter time ordered by the court—serve a demand for a jury trial on any other or all factual issues triable by jury." D is correct. The issue here is, did the retailer properly demand a jury trial pursuant to the FRCP? A party who wishes to have a jury trial must file a demand with the court for a jury trial. The demand must be made within 14 days after the last pleading related to the issue is served or else the demand is waived. In this case, the architect did not file an answer to the first or second complaint. Therefore, the last pleading related to the issues the retailer is requesting a jury for has not yet been served. The retailer did not miss the 14-day deadline and may still demand a jury. A is incorrect. It does not matter that the demand came 14 days after the motion to dismiss because the architect did not answer the complaint. Therefore, the last pleading on the issue has not been served. B is incorrect. The 14-day count does not begin until after the architect answers the amended complaint demanding a jury, not when the original complaint was served. C is incorrect. This answer is only partially correct. The demand is still valid for both claims because there was no answer filed for the first claim of fraudulent misrepresentation. If the architect had answered one of the complaints earlier, the 14-day window to demand a jury trial on that issue would have begun then. However, because the architect only made a motion to dismiss and not an answer to the complaints, the retailer is still timely in making a jury demand.
When must a party object to jury instructions?
At the close of evidence, or sooner if allowed by the court, parties may submit proposed jury instructions. The court must inform the parties of its proposed instructions and give the parties a chance to object before instructing the jury. A party must object to an instruction at this time to preserve it for appeal. In this case, after the judge informed the parties of the instructions she would give, but before she actually instructed the jury, was the time for the defendant to object.
A is incorrect. After the judge has instructed the jury, but before they have retired, a party may object to an instruction that was improperly given or forgotten. In this case, the instructions were not improperly given or forgotten. The judge, prior to instructing the jury, informed the parties of the instructions she would give.
C is incorrect. Either party may submit proposed instructions. The judge then rules on the instructions and makes a final determination. After the judge’s determination, a party must object to preserve an issue for appeal.
D is incorrect. Failure to give a proposed instruction does not amount to a ruling on the instruction. A party must formally object to preserve any arguments for appeal.
Whether a party may poll the jury?
In both federal and state litigation, the party who loses at trial generally has the right to appeal the adverse judgment. Generally, only final orders are reviewable on appeal. Under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) 3 and 4, an appeal may be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the district court within 30 days from the entry of the judgment. A final order is one that disposes of the whole case on its merits, by rendering final judgment not only as to all the parties but as to all causes of action involved.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 48(c) allows for jury polling, stating that, “[a]fter a verdict is returned but before the jury is discharged, the court must on a party’s request, or may on its own, poll the jurors individually. If the poll reveals a lack of unanimity or lack of assent by the number of jurors that the parties stipulated to, the court may direct the jury to deliberate further or may order a new trial.”
An order for a new trial is not considered a final judgment in the federal system. See Gospel Army v. Los Angeles, 331 U.S. 543 (1947) (finding that “for a judgment of an appellate court to be final and reviewable for this purpose, it must end the litigation by fully determining the rights of the parties, so that nothing remains to be done by the trial court . . . . Thus, where the effect of the state court’s direction is to grant a new trial, the judgment will not be final”).
In the famous Erie decision, the Supreme Court held federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state substantive law on the substantive issues of the case, including state common law.
D is correct. The court of appeals should dismiss the cyclist’s appeal because it lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. After polling the jurors and discovered they were not unanimous on the issue of the cyclist’s level of care and contributory negligence, a new trial was ordered. This means that there was no final judgment, but rather, an impending new trial. For the appellate court to have proper jurisdiction, the appeal must be from a final order on all the causes of action involved in the case.
A is incorrect. This is an incorrect statement of the law. FRCP 48(c) does allow for a federal court to poll the jury on its own. Therefore, the trial judge’s decision to individually poll the jurors was proper and an argument that it was improper would not succeed on appeal.
B is incorrect. This case was a diversity action in federal court, which means that under Erie, state substantive law would apply. As such, it is irrelevant whether contributory negligence is a defense to a negligence action in federal court. Only State A law will apply, and there is no indication in the facts that such a defense does not exist.
C is incorrect. FRCP 48(c) allows for a trial court to order a new trial (OR direct jurors to deliberate further) if, after polling the jurors individually, it is revealed that there was a lack of unanimity. This is exactly what occurred here when the trial court ordered a new trial, even though it could have chosen to instruct the jury to deliberate further. Subsequently, the new trial order was not an error and would not succeed as an appellate argument.
