DuPont’s lawyers, in court filings this week, have insisted that Juror No. 54 was “visibly in tears” after the judge questioned her about a note he received from the jury raising concerns about her willingness to deliberate. In moving for a mistrial, defense lawyers wrote, “the circumstances surrounding the jury deliberations had an unconstitutionally coercive effect and a mistrial should be granted.”

But, in a Monday order allowing DuPont to file its mistrial motion under seal, U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus of the Southern District of Ohio cast doubt on whether the juror was crying, stating he took “strong issue with the unsupported claim.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]