Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

o doesnt matter if a juror says i considered

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: had ex parte communication with trial judge Jurors discussed prior conviction of D that had not been admitted into evidence Jurors considered things not admitted into evidence. NOTE: Jurors may of course take into account their own experiences as general background knowledge! [Wilson v. Vermont Castings case] As long as personal knowledge is not specific info about or party or events of the litigation! WILSON v. VERMONT CASTINGS, INC. [Witness Competency Competency of Juror as Witness: FRE 606] Facts: Product liability case Wilson owned stove, left a side door on stove open to help her get fire started. As she stood in front of the stove to warm herself, her dress caught on fire, resulting in serious burns and the loss of her fingers on her left hand. Wilson claimed that the stove was defective because o Users had to keep the door slightly ajar to keep the fire going, and o There was no warning on the stove to tell users to keep the door shot. Procedural Posture: Wilson had never read or seen the manual, motion in limine to exclude any evidence of the existence or contents of the stove owner's manual granted. Jury returned verdict for Vermont Castings. After trial...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online