Wednesday, December 10, 2014


Below is an excerpt from a decision handed down this week from the Supreme Court.

"Generally speaking, information is deemed "extraneous "if it derives from a source "external" to the jury. See Tanner, 483 U. S., at 117. "External" matters include publicity and information related specifically to the case the jurors are meant to decide."

Click for full opinion

It is important to remember the background - a juror -  There is no issue that the jury was tainted when a juror, Raul Villarreal, went on line and posted to Emma Perez-Trevino's posts related to the trial. You must also remember during the trial Emma trashed Villalobos' attorneys on her FB page.
"Exceptions to the common law rule were recognized only in situations in which an "extraneous influence," Mattox v. United States,146 U. S. 140, 146 U. S. 149 (1892), was alleged to have affected the jury. In Mattox, this Court held admissible the testimony of jurors describing how they heard and read prejudicial information not admitted into evidence. The Court allowed juror testimony on influence by outsiders in Parker v. Gladden,385 U. S. 363, 385 U. S. 365 (1966) (bailiff's comments on defendant), and Remmer v. United States,347 U. S. 227, 347 U. S. 228-230 (1954) (bribe offered to juror). See also Smith v. Phillips,455 U. S. 209 (1982) (juror in criminal trial had submitted an application for employment at the District Attorney's office). In situations that did not fall into this exception for external influence, however, the Court adhered to the common law rule against admitting juror testimony to impeach a verdict. McDonald v. Pless,238 U. S. 264 (1915); Hyde v. United States,225 U. S. 347, 225 U. S. 384 (1912)."

See Tanner

Does any of this mean Villalobos will get a new trial? No.  It just means the argument about outside information getting to a juror is an active issue before the Supreme Court.  I have been pushing Villalobos to take the issue to the ABA Journal Technology section because new trials based on jury misconduct and social media is a hot issue.  Only Villalobos knows why he is keeping silent. In the end I think his silence will result in Villalobos  doing his full sentence.


BobbyWC said...

I was at the trial and know the facts. So i am not intetested

BobbyWC said...

The court of appeals will print the facts and in the end that will tell the story.

I will not allow for statements from sealed transcripts. The fact you want to talk about sealed transcripts says a lot.

Further, how do you think I got your name - you ran your mouth all over town - credibility is not something associated with you based on your known conduct.

So I will wait for the court of appeals decision and then print their factual findings.

Further I never accused you of being friends with anyone - so what the hell are you talking about.

You were ordered not to discuss the hearing and you did to numerous friends which is how I know your name and even now you are discussing that which you were ordered not to discuss.

Exactly why would I consider you trustworthy when you are clearly violating the court order and lying by claiming I accused you of being someone's friend?

Bobbv WC

Anonymous said...

How is he paying for all this while in jail?

BobbyWC said...

He has a court appointed attorney

Bobby WC