You are on page 1of 3

Patel 1

Rushi Patel

Independent Research

Pd: 2

Chawkat

January 30, 2018

Annotated Bib:

The research in this article provides insight how juror use their previous experiences to

introduce extraneous info, as well as providing how states and courts have “attempted” to reduce

the risk of this. Courts support using previous experiences to make decisions. However, they

don’t support using their previous knowledge to bring in brand new evidence into the court.

Usually, courts, try to stop this by preventing the juror from taking independent trips to accident

sites or crime scenes or reading medical references. When one of the jurors don’t have the same

outside information as another juror can create a lot of problems when making a decision about a

case. The three-prong test is used to determine if a juror is committing misconduct in a case. The

purpose of the three-prong test is to determine whether or not the juror will commit misconduct

by three rules. These are that jurors “use some expertise that is not within the common

[experiences of the juror],” that person must tell his/her expert opinion to the other jurors, and

the juror's opinion should concern a material issue in the case. In the journal, they gave a

real-world case, People Vs.Maragh, which was when two of the jurors were nurses who were

part of a homicidal trial. These nurses performed independent estimations of the victim’s blood

loss using the professional experience to conduct it. The findings that the jurors’ found
Patel 2

contradicted the expert’s findings. Furthermore, some of the states tried to prevent extraneous

information by having jurors digress from media or any other connections to the world.

Additionally, some states went as even far enough to ban jurors from using extraneous

information. However, California and Washington draw a distinction between the use of personal

expertise to give opinions and expertise to introduce new facts. In conclusion, personal expertise

can be interpreted in different ways by different people and states.

This information is reliable because it was located in a database, meaning that the

information had been checked for accuracy. Additionally, the author explains the ways in which

extraneous information can be a problem when making decisions. Furthermore, the author

provides in-depth ways where states have been trying to prevent extraneous information from

leaking into the courtroom. The author provided different court cases where extraneous

information was taken into account. Kristin A. Liska, the author of the academic journal, was a

student at the University of Stanford and part of Stanford Law program. The source was

published in 2017, making the source not outdated due to the fact that it is providing current

information about the status of extraneous information in society. This source is based on fact,

therefore there is no other point of view that needs to be addressed in this paper. The author,

however, discusses how extraneous information can change a verdict of a trial.

Liska, Kristin A. "Experts in the jury room: when personal experience is extraneous
information." ​Stanford Law Review​, Mar. 2017, p. 911+. ​Student Resources In Context​,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A491843136/GPS?u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=9505ef
ae. Accessed 29 May 2018.
Patel 3