Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rushi Patel
Independent Research
Pd: 2
Chawkat
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
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,
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