Koennecke v. State

Assume, for the moment, that the jury arrived at its verdict by relying on the personal knowledge of one of its members about petitioner’s “reputation for doing that sort of thing with a gun.” 122 Or App at 102. Assume also, that the jury would have acquitted petitioner, but for its reliance on personal knowledge as a substitute for evidence.1 In safeguarding the sacrosanctity of the jury’s deliberations, the majority prevents petitioner from discovering information that would establish that a substantial denial of his constitutional rights resulted in his conviction. I believe that…