Did you know choosing the train can take up to 500 cars off the road? Just one train at a time.

One gig at a time, one last minute plan, one festival, one going then, why not at a time?

One train journey at a time can help create a greener future.

So when will you take your next trip? Find out more at nationalrail.co.uk for Witslash Greener.

In its landmark ruling in Tanner vs. United States, the Supreme Court held that after a turning

of verdict, jurors could not impeach or invalidate that verdict by taking the witness stand

and saying that jurors were getting drunk and getting high during the trial and jury deliberations.

Writing for the Court, just a Santerdale conner stated that there is little doubt that push

verdict investigation to germus conduct within some instances leads to the invalidation

of verdicts reached after a response to our improper juror behavior. It is not at all clear

however that the jury system could survive such efforts to perfect it.

A couple of years ago however, the Supreme Court revisited this issue when the rule against

jury impeachment butted up against the right to an impartial jury and specifically the right

to a jury free of racial bias. This issue is now been raised again due to a man who is

quite possibly given the death penalty due to the fact that he is gay.

And so the question now becomes, does it make sense to protect defendants from discrimination

based upon race, but not to protect defendants from discrimination based upon sexual orientation?

Hi, this is Colin Miller. I'm an associate dean and professor at the University of South Carolina

School of Law and I blog at Evidence Prof. Blog. This June you may have read the same intercept

article as me. It was by Jordan Smith and it was titled, jurors thought a gay man would enjoy prison.

They sent him to death row instead. Will the Supreme Court intervene? The answer to that question

was no and to understand it, we need to go all the way back to the 18th century. In 1785,

...