Preview of Member Only Content
For full access: or Become a Member
Reviews in Review
By Ellen S. Podgor
Reviews in Review columns.
Peter Westen & Eric Ow, Reaching Agreement on When Jurors Must Agree, 10 New Criminal Law Review 153 (2007):
What happens when jurors disagree as to the means the accused used in
committing the offense? Professor Peter Westen and Eric Ow tackle this
question and provide an entirely new perspective. Their analysis may be
of interest to defense counsel arguing this issue.
The authors start by dissecting the two Supreme Court decisions that reflect on this issue. They note that the cases of Shad v. Arizona and Richardson v. United States
produce five different views, with one case holding for the prosecution
and the other for the defense. The authors use hypotheticals in this
article, and specifically in the beginning of the piece so that readers
can grasp the nuances of the issue. One hypothetical is offered to show
how juror concurrence may not be desired, with another demonstrating why
it might be needed to protect the constitutional rights of the
Want to read more?
The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.
NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.
Not a member? Join now.
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.
See what NACDL members say about us.
To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.
- Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or firstname.lastname@example.org
- Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.