Oral arguments starting in the Joey Watkins case. I will live tweet in this thread: gasupreme.us/live/ 
Joey's attorney argues cell tower evidence shows he couldn't have gotten to the crime scene in time for the murder.
Notes how juror ignored the instruction not to do a drive test, which a juror did...leading to change from not guilty to guilty.
Counsel notes that jury misconduct wasn't discovered until 2016, allowing for a successor habeas claim.
Counsel notes that this is a 6th Amendment violating...argues this applies to jury misconduct during trial; wouldn't apply to pre-existing knowledge by the juror.
Question is whether extraneous prejudicial information (e.g., drive test or Google mistrial) is always a Constitutional violation. Counsel says it is case-by-case.
Counsel focuses on instruction given by judge not to do a drive test. Justices continue questioning him about why this elevates it to a Constitutional claim.
Counsel claims that juror in effect became a witness against Watkins, making this a Confrontation Clause claim.
Question by justice about juror's pre-existing knowledge about the location and distance between the cell tower ping and the scene of the shooting.
Question about whether the juror went out of her way to do the drive test.
Counsel focuses on how the drive test led the juror to change her vote from not guilty to guilty.
Judge asks about timing of the drive test. Counsel says the fact that she did the drive test while serving as a juror made this a Constitutional issue.
Justices noting we take the jurors as we find them, including all their baggage. But this jurors did something new after the trial started.
Justice asks about a juror looking up a word used by a juror in the dictionary. Would that be a Constitutional violation?
Justice asks whether the juror shared her finding with another juror. Counsel notes that her affidavit showed she shared the drive test with another juror.
Counsel argues that there would be a Constitutional violation even without sharing the drive test with another juror.
Justice raising the question about why this is a Constitutional violation. Counsel says b/c this makes her a witness against the defendant.
Justice again asking why the timing matters.
Justice saying a juror's pre-existing baggage can/should be developed during voir dire. But you can't suss out whether a juror would do a drive test during deliberations.
Justice focusing upon what happens if a juror already knows the distance between Point A & Point B. Counsel says that's OK. Justice asks why.
Justice asks why voir dire makes a difference as to whether a juror is a witness against the defendant.
Counsel citing to Bobo and Watkins (a prior case) to argue that there is a Due Process/Confrontation Clause violation.
Justice asking about hypo if juror just stated pre-existing knowledge to the other jurors. Counsel saying this would still be a problem.
Justice asking whether things would change if there were no jury instruction. Counsel says this would still be a Constitutional violation.
Justice asks whether habeas court issues a ruling on the merits of the jury impeachment issue. Counsel says "no."
Counsel says Watkins not required to interview jurors under "due diligence" standard. Says Watkins entitled to presume jurors acted properly.
Counsel says there's a presumption that jurors acted properly.
Now, the State is up.
Justice asks counsel to start by addressing why, w/out any indication of jury misconduct, defense counsel must interview all jurors & file open records request for everything.
Justice asks whether "due diligence" requires interviewing jurors.
Counsel notes all of the appeals in this case. Justice asks whether any indication of jury misconduct.
Counsel says no indication of jury misconduct but says no evidence in other cases in which jurors were interviewed.
Focus on "due diligence." If require discovery of jury misconduct early, we're telling every criminal defendant they must harass every juror right after the trial.
Justices asking whether you have to do all you can do to satisfy the "due diligence" test.
Justices note that interviewing all jurors could open the floodgates to all sorts of appeals based on jury misconduct.
Debate between justices and counsel about the "due diligence" standard and what it means.
Justices asking about whether, in prior cases, it was attorneys reaching out to jurors or vice versa.
Justice asking counsel whether you're not exercising due diligence unless you interview every juror in every case you lose.
Justices talking about @TheViewFromLL2 uncovering the jury misconduct.
Justice asking about the oath taken by jurors and whether lawyers are entitled to believe jurors followed that oath.
Justice asking whether obligation to investigate judge, bailiff, etc. after every trial to uncover possible bias/misconduct.
Justice asking about jurors who rebuff questions after verdict. Do you have to subpoena them?
Counsel trying to answer.
Another justice then follows up with the same question about subpoenaing jurors.
Justices now asking about the necessity of requiring an Open Records request based on the grave dog/chain of custody issue.
Counsel saying no due diligence in the facts of this case. Justices asking whether *any* case would require an Open Records Act request in every criminal trial in Georgia.
Justice asking whether the DA's office wants that rule.
Counsel saying some attorneys/pro se defendants do this. Justices asking whether the failure to do so means no "due diligence."
Justices focusing on the burden this would create for the State and what it would mean for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Justice asking about whether there's a Due Process/Confrontation Clause issue with jurors doing independent research to test State's theory at trial.
Counsel focusing on case in which court found juror measuring dimensions of bed to answer question at trial.
Justice focusing on pre-existing knowledge for jurors vs. independent research once trial has started.
Counsel saying issue might be how central the size of the bed is to the trial.
Justice asking whether a new trial is justified here under counsel's own test.
Justice asking whether going out to do the drive test is a Constitutional violation.
Counsel says she didn't set out to do the drive test. Justice says that she then did the drive test. Question is on new vs. old knowledge.
Justice and counsel note there was no evidentiary hearing to determine exactly what the juror did and whether she conveyed that info to another juror.
Justice saying we can suss this all of if we remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Justice saying that, as of now, we read everything in favor of Watkins (pleading stage).
Justice saying question is whether there's a Constitutional violation if we take the facts as pled by the defense.
