The Champion

July 2007 , Page 53 

Search the Champion Looking for something specific?

Preview of Member Only Content

For full access: login or Become a Member Join Now

Reviews in Review

By Ellen S. Podgor

Read more Reviews in Review columns.

Juror Concurrence

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.
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
  • Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.

In This Section

Advertisement Advertise with Us