Koval v. Bodenschatz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a district court erred in declining to engage in further inquiry where every juror admitted to taking part in premature discussions
• holding that upon a showing of “unequivocal proof” of jury misconduct discovered during the trial, a district court may not abrogate its duty to find, as a factual matter, whether the jury has been prejudiced
• holding that upon a showing of “unequivocal proof” of jury misconduct discovered during the trial, a district court may not abrogate its duty to find, as a factual matter, whether the jury has been prejudiced
• finding that although the jury engaged in premature deliberations, \there is no reason to doubt that the jury based its ultimate decision only on evidence formally presented at trial\
• writing that premature jury deliberations violate “the proper process for jury decisionmaking,” but provide “no reason to doubt that the jury based its ultimate decision only on evidence formally presented at trial”
• remanding case for new trial where district court failed to conduct meaningful inquiry into allegations of prejudicial intra-jury communications

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).