Criminal trial judges may be more sensitive to rumblings of dissent on juries now that a conviction has been reversed due to a juror mysteriously skipping out on deliberations.
The judge's replacement of the juror without exploring whether her absence was due to disagreements on the panel "impedes our careful scrutiny of the propriety of the substitution under these circumstances," a New Jersey appeals court held on Wednesday in State v. Musa.
This content has been archived.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 Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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]