What do you call a six week period in which you and a handful of very, very recent acquaintances?

Get drunk every day at lunch, sleep through the afternoon, sell weed to each other, smoke weed with each other,

and whip out a few bags of cocaine to snort when the time feels right.

For a group of 12 people in Florida in 1987, they would call it jury duty.

That's right. In an affidavit filed later, a juror described himself as quote,

flying high during the entire trial.

Another juror stated that he felt like,

quote, the jury was just one big party.

This is the story of a very wild, very bad drunk jury that caused so much trouble

their case made it all the way to the Supreme Court with one simple question.

Does a jury's verdict still stand

when they were, for all intents and purposes,

hammered the entire time?

The Supreme Court said yes, it stands, and to this day that rule is still the rule.

Other cases of jury misconduct over the years have gotten crazier and crazier,

including in one case where a jury convicted a man of double homicide by consulting a

Ouija board.

I wish I was joking.

We are breaking down Tanner versus United States

and going over jury misconduct

why we should care about it

and why the rule is what it is. We are going to wade through all of these messes and more in today's episode of the rebuttal podcast.

...