Yes, and thought's common enough (Daily Business Review). Seriously, there's some kind of a point to be made here about the artificiality of a fact-finding method in which looking up a word's meaning in a dictionary needs to be suppressed with rigor as "misconduct". But that's a point for another day.
"Jury misbehavior more common than thought"
- More on the Eastern District of Texas
- New York judges more likely to acquit than juries
- Jury trials and the press, UK edition
- Caylee's Law?
- Around the web, March 16
- Judge grants new trial for plaintiff in St. Louis "Girls Gone Wild" case
- Thoughts on the Litigation Lottery II
- Philip Howard in WSJ on medical liability politics
- Criticizing abusive litigation = "jury tampering"?
- New Republic: "Pre-emption games"
- By 'jury bias' AAJ probably means jury knowledge, skepticism
- Bureau of Justice Statistics 2005 Report on Civil Trials in State Courts
- Trial innovations: study shows favorable results
- City juries and suburban juries
- Souter's "icky Exxon" footnote