The Lori Drew Verdict
Anne Reed, author of the Deliberations blog, has some interesting comments on the possible role of jury selection in the verdict in the Lori Drew/MySpace harassment case.
Anne Reed, author of the Deliberations blog, has some interesting comments on the possible role of jury selection in the verdict in the Lori Drew/MySpace harassment case.
Coincidentally, on the very day I am planning to cover juror misconduct in Criminal Process, I see this story in the New York Times regarding a murder conviction that may be overturned based on juror misconduct. Notice how brazenly the defendant’s mother sought out evidence of misconduct. This is, of course, precisely the sort of post-verdict harassment of jurors that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) aims to prevent. I wonder if the mother has created a criminal liability problem for herself by disguising her identity and secretly recording phone conversations with the juror in question.
The Seventh Circuit had three new opinions in criminal cases in this holiday-shortened work week, with the government winning on all of the major issues in each appeal.
In the first, United States v. Carmel (No. 07-3906), the Seventh Circuit (per Judge Manion) affirmed the defendant’s conviction for possessing an unregistered machine gun in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861. In addition to raising some case-specific issues relating to a search warrant, the defendant also argued that § 5861 was invalid in light of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which criminalizes possession of machine guns. In essence, Carmel argued that § 5861, which punishes people for not registering their machine guns, makes no sense when § 922(o) effectively precludes registration. The Tenth Circuit bought this argument in United States v. Dalton, 960 F.2d 121 (10th Cir. 1992), but it was subsequently rejected in seven other circuits. And now the Seventh Circuit makes eight. It’s not clear to me, though, why the government would ever charge a defendant like Carmel under § 5861 when § 922(o) is also applicable and carries the same maximum penalty — why not render the Dalton issue moot by using § 922(o) exclusively in these cases?