Clyde Mattox v. United States
Citations
- 146 U.S. 140
- 13 S. Ct. 50
- 36 L. Ed. 917
- 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2183
Syllabus
<p>■When the trial court excludes affidavits offered in support of a motion for a new trial, and due exception is taken, and that court, in passing upon the.motion exercises no discretion in respect of the matters stated in the affidavits, the question of the admissibility of the affidavits is preserved for1 the consideration of this court on a writ of error, notwithstanding the general rule that the allowance or refusal of a new trial . rests in the sound discretion of the court to which the application is addressed.</p> <p>In determining what may or may not be established by the testimony of jurors to set aside a verdict, public policy forbids that a matter resting in the personal consciousness of one juror should be received to overthrow it; but evidence of an overt act, open to the knowledge of all the jury, may be so received..</p> <p>Perry v. Bailey, 12 Kansas, 539, approved and followed.</p> <p>On a motion for a new trial on the ground of bias on the part of one of the jurors, the evidence of jurors as to the motives aud influences which affected their deliberations is inadmissible either to impeach or support the verdict; bu't a jurjonan may testify to any facts bearing upon the. question of the existence of any extraneous influence, although not as to how far that influence operated on his- mind; and he may also testify in denial or explanation of acts or declarations outside of the jury room, where evidence of such acts has been given as ground for a new trial.</p> <p>Woodward v. Beavitt, 107 Mass. 453, approved and followed.</p> <p>The'jury in this case, (an indictment for murder,) retired October 7, to consider their- verdict. On the morning bf October 8, they had not agreed on their, verdict. A newspaper article was then read to them, the tendency of. which was injurious to the accused. They returned a .verdict of guilty. Affidavits of jurors of this fact were offered in support . óf a motion for a new trial,_and were rejected. Held, that this was rever
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that a juror “may testify to any facts bearing upon the question of the existence of any extraneous influence”
- holding that testimony of jurors describing how they 20 heard and read prejudicial information not admitted into evidence was admissible to 21 impeach verdict because testimony involved extraneous influence on jury’s verdict
- stating that \the certain expectation of almost immediate death will remove all temptation of falsehood and enforce as strict adherence to the truth as the obligation of an oath could impose\
- stating that “in capital cases [] the jury should pass upon the case free from external causes tending to disturb the exercise of deliberated and unbiased judgment”
- stating that “in capital cases ... the jury should pass upon the case free from external causes tending to disturb the exercise of deliberate and unbiased judgment”
- stating that \in capital cases ... the jury should pass upon the case free from external causes tending to disturb the exercise of deliberate and unbiased judgment\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Fuller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.