[Howlin]

Well, then WHERE is the rule for federal cases?

I have stated repeatedly that I have HEARD lawyers say that those are the only grounds that can be appealed. Now, unless all those lawyers in all those articles and on all those talk shows don't know as much as you do, you'd think ONE of them would have mentioned that as a possibility, wouldn't you?

[Bluntpoint]

Again, they are not going to discuss appealable issues that are not present in this instant case.

There is no discussion here probably because an instruction, etc, was not challenged by the defense that could be associated with later juror comments.

I'm sorry that a lay person like yourself has trouble wrapping your head around that.

Look up the Federal Rules of procedure. It is a thick book. Most of which is not discussed by the talking heads in Martha's case because they are irrelevant to the case at hand.

Now, I'm going to find some urologist and tell him I know more than he concerning testicular misfires.

I'll ping you into such discussion when it gets hot and heavy.

[Cboldt]

Well, then WHERE is the rule for federal cases?

I'm looking for an online citation, but it is true that the grounds for appeal (in a global sense, not that such grounds stand in this case) does include juror and jury activities.

In an earlier message, you refered to "District courts" as not being the same as Federal Courts. The case noted by Bluntpoint was a case in a Federal District Court.

Here is a case, heard in Federal Court, where juror misconduct was raised as grounds for a new trial: Mistrial? Rosenthal Jurors Say They Received Outside ...

Tim McVeigh's counsel also argued for a new trial based on juror misconduct. CNN - Appeals court considers McVeigh's bid for new trial

Here is a broader reference: JURY MISCONDUCT AND POST TRIAL JUROR INTERVIEWS