When I said evidence can be used for purposes most people don’t think about, this is exactly what I meant. In this case, the Defendant is making an argument of bias on the juror’s part as a basis for a motion seeking a new trial.
Actually, they raise a fascinating question of law (for people like me, anyway):
“Arkansas law requires defendants to prove that outside information
entered the jury room and corrupted a verdict — not that information
from the jury room made its way out.”
But does it really matter whether the motion is granted or denied? Look at the mess this juror has caused; in time, cost and possible (although unlikely) reversal.
Let’s face it – “Juror Jonathan” is out of his tree.