What are three examples of juror misconduct?

Juror misconduct is a serious concern in any legal system. When jurors fail to follow the rules, it can lead to incorrect jury decisions and undermine public trust in the justice process. In this post, we’ll explore three common examples of juror misconduct, explain why they matter, and discuss how courts address them to protect the integrity of trials.

Introduction: why juror conduct matters

Jury trials rest on the premise that a group of impartial citizens can weigh evidence, apply the law as instructed by the judge, and render a fair verdict. Jurors are expected to base their decision solely on the information presented in court and from the legal instructions provided. When misconduct occurs, it can skew the deliberation process, introduce external influences, or create unfair advantages for one side. The keyword you supplied, incorrect jury decisions, highlights the potential consequences when juror behavior deviates from these expectations.

Example 1: Improper discussions outside the courtroom

One of the most well-known forms of juror misconduct occurs when jurors discuss the case outside of the courtroom. This can happen in person, via text messages, social media, or other electronic communications. Even if the discussions seem casual, they can introduce new facts, rumors, or personal biases into the deliberation process.

• Why it matters: External discussions can contaminate jurors’ assessment of evidence, lead to premature conclusions, or misrepresent what was said during testimony. This increases the risk of an incorrect jury decision because jurors may be swayed by information that was not presented or properly considered in court.
• Real-world implications: Courts often consider juror communications as grounds for reversing a verdict or granting a new trial. Judges may declare a mistrial or declare the juror’s inputs invalid if they determine the discussions could have affected the outcome.
• How courts respond: Jurors are typically instructed not to communicate about the case and not to conduct independent investigations. If a juror is found to have discussed the case, the judge may remove the juror, declare a mistrial, or instead issue corrective instructions to the remaining jurors.

Example 2: Serving despite disqualification or bias

Jurors must be impartial and capable of deciding a case based solely on the evidence and the law. A juror with a conflict of interest, prior involvement, or strong biases can undermine the fairness of the trial.

• Why it matters: If a juror harbors a personal stake in the outcome or has preconceived notions about the parties, witnesses, or subject matter, their evaluation of the facts may be skewed. This can lead to an incorrect jury decision because the verdict may reflect bias rather than an objective analysis of the evidence.
• Real-world implications: Courts can challenge the qualifications of jurors during voir dire or post-trial. A juror who fails to disclose a disqualifying bias or connection may warrant a new trial if the bias could have affected the verdict.
• How courts respond: If bias or disqualification is discovered, the judge may replace the juror (in some cases mid-trial), declare a mistrial, or issue a verdict set aside if bias is shown to have impacted the outcome.

Example 3: Misconduct involving the use of outside information or research

Jurors are typically instructed to rely on the evidence presented in court and the judge’s instructions, not on outside sources. Some jurors attempt to seek information on their own or use devices to look up facts, legal standards, or details about the parties.

• Why it matters: Independent research can unbalance the trial by introducing unreliable or non-admitted information. This can contribute to an incorrect jury decision because jurors are no longer evaluating evidence within the framework set by the court.
• Real-world implications: Courts view outside research as a serious breach of juror duties. It can lead to a new trial or a remand for further proceedings if the information could have changed the verdict.
• How courts respond: Judges may impose sanctions, declare a mistrial, or grant a new trial if outside research is shown to have affected the outcome. Jurors may be instructed to avoid electronic devices and to re-examine the evidence under proper guidance.

Other common forms of juror misconduct (brief overview)

• Jurors fabricating or misrepresenting what was said in court
• Jurors engaging in ex parte communications with lawyers or witnesses
• Jurors attempting to influence fellow jurors with improper pressure or coercion

These behaviors threaten the principle of a fair trial and can be grounds for reviewing or overturning a verdict.

Final thoughts: safeguarding the integrity of verdicts

Correct jury decisions depend on jurors who adhere strictly to the rules and guidelines provided by the court. Improper discussions outside the courtroom, bias or disqualification, and seeking outside information are three prominent examples of juror misconduct that can lead to an incorrect jury decision. By understanding these issues, defendants, attorneys, and judges can better recognize warning signs, implement preventative measures, and seek remedies such as new trials when necessary. Upholding juror integrity is essential to maintaining trust in the justice system and ensuring that verdicts reflect the true weight of the evidence.

Visit my donation page and make a donation to my case.  Every little bit helps!