United States v. McDonough

N.D. New York

United States v. McDonough

844 F. Supp. 115, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2347, 1994 WL 61344

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. New York

DecidedFebruary 25, 1994

DocketNo. 93-CR-162

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 844 F. Supp. 115 (United States v. McDonough) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. McDonough, 844 F. Supp. 115, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2347, 1994 WL 61344 (N.D.N.Y. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

McAVOY, Chief Judge.

Currently before the court is an application by the defendants to interview Mrs. Pauline Polito, the alternate juror in the above-captioned matter, concerning publicity surrounding the trial and any discussions among the jurors concerning such publicity. There is a judicial reluctance to inquire into the state of mind of any juror and into the conduct of the jurors during their deliberations. This is to avoid harassment of jurors, inhibition of deliberation in the jury room, a deluge of post-verdict applications mostly without real merit, and an increase in opportunities for jury tampering; it is also to prevent jury verdicts from being made more uncertain. United States v. Crosby, 294 F.2d 928, 950 (2nd Cir.1961), cert denied, 368 U.S. 984, 82 S.Ct. 599, 7 L.Ed.2d 523 (1962).

To overcome this reluctance and to authorize a post verdict inquiry, there must be “clear evidence”, “strong evidence”, “clear and uncontrovertible evidence”, “substantial if not wholly conclusive evidence.” United States v. Dioguardi 492 F.2d 70, 79 (2d Cir.1974); King v. United States, 576 F.2d 432, 438 (2d Cir.1978).

Applying this principle to the facts presented here, it is clear that the defendants have submitted insufficient evidence to warrant such an intrusion. Accordingly, the de[116]*116fendants’ request to interview Mrs. Pauline Polito is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

McAVOY, Chief Judge.

Currently before the court is an application by the defendants to interview Mrs. Pauline Polito, the alternate juror in the above-captioned matter, concerning publicity surrounding the trial and any discussions among the jurors concerning such publicity. There is a judicial reluctance to inquire into the state of mind of any juror and into the conduct of the jurors during their deliberations. This is to avoid harassment of jurors, inhibition of deliberation in the jury room, a deluge of post-verdict applications mostly without real merit, and an increase in opportunities for jury tampering; it is also to prevent jury verdicts from being made more uncertain. United States v. Crosby, 294 F.2d 928, 950 (2nd Cir.1961), cert denied, 368 U.S. 984, 82 S.Ct. 599, 7 L.Ed.2d 523 (1962).

To overcome this reluctance and to authorize a post verdict inquiry, there must be “clear evidence”, “strong evidence”, “clear and uncontrovertible evidence”, “substantial if not wholly conclusive evidence.” United States v. Dioguardi 492 F.2d 70, 79 (2d Cir.1974); King v. United States, 576 F.2d 432, 438 (2d Cir.1978).

Applying this principle to the facts presented here, it is clear that the defendants have submitted insufficient evidence to warrant such an intrusion. Accordingly, the de[116]*116fendants’ request to interview Mrs. Pauline Polito is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

844 F. Supp. 115, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2347, 1994 WL 61344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mcdonough-nynd-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack