context: Many jurors would no doubt feel threatened or intimidated by such contacts, and excluding evidence that is improperly obtained from jurors effectively deters such contacts and preserves the integrity of our judicial process. For these reasons, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that was obtained in violation of Local Rule 5.01(d).
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 169 F.2d 739, 745-46
citation_a.parenthetical: stating in slightly different context that "[h]e who makes studied inquiries of jurors ... acts at his peril, ... [and] [i]t is incumbent upon the courts to protect jurors from [such inquiries]."
citation_a.sentence: See Tanner, 483 U.S. at 126, 107 S.Ct. at 2750 (recognizing in dicta that “[t]he juror affidavit submitted in support of the second new trial motion was obtained in clear violation of the District Court’s order and the court’s local rule against juror interviews ...; on this basis alone the District Court would have been acting within its discretion in disregarding the affidavit.”) (emphasis added); Arney v. Helbig, 383 N.W.2d 4, 6 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (affirming court’s denial- of hearing to plaintiff where his attorney conducted improper juror interview and recognizing state’s policy to decline hearings based on information improperly obtained from jurors); cf. Rakes v. United States, 169 F.2d 739, 745-46 (4th Cir.1948) (stating in slightly different context that “[h]e who makes studied inquiries of jurors ... acts at his peril, ... [and] [i]t is incumbent upon the courts to protect jurors from [such inquiries].”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 383 N.W.2d 4, 6
citation_b.parenthetical: affirming court's denial- of hearing to plaintiff where his attorney conducted improper juror interview and recognizing state's policy to decline hearings based on information improperly obtained from jurors
citation_b.sentence: See Tanner, 483 U.S. at 126, 107 S.Ct. at 2750 (recognizing in dicta that “[t]he juror affidavit submitted in support of the second new trial motion was obtained in clear violation of the District Court’s order and the court’s local rule against juror interviews ...; on this basis alone the District Court would have been acting within its discretion in disregarding the affidavit.”) (emphasis added); Arney v. Helbig, 383 N.W.2d 4, 6 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (affirming court’s denial- of hearing to plaintiff where his attorney conducted improper juror interview and recognizing state’s policy to decline hearings based on information improperly obtained from jurors); cf. Rakes v. United States, 169 F.2d 739, 745-46 (4th Cir.1948) (stating in slightly different context that “[h]e who makes studied inquiries of jurors ... acts at his peril, ... [and] [i]t is incumbent upon the courts to protect jurors from [such inquiries].”).