Jury Misconduct And Challenges
I. INTRODUCTION
Jury misconduct occurs when a juror behaves in a way that violates court rules, statutory law, or ethical standards, potentially influencing the verdict improperly. Courts take it seriously because it undermines the right to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment in the U.S. and comparable constitutional protections elsewhere.
Challenges to jurors are mechanisms to prevent unqualified or biased individuals from serving.
II. TYPES OF JURY MISCONDUCT
Exposure to Outside Information
Jurors must decide the case solely on evidence presented in court.
Examples: reading media reports, social media discussions, internet research.
Improper Communication
Communication with parties, witnesses, or attorneys outside court.
Bribery, threats, or coercion are extreme examples.
Prejudicial Bias
Expressing opinions about the case or parties before deliberation.
Revealing racial, religious, or gender bias that may affect impartiality.
Deliberation Misconduct
Coercing other jurors, ignoring the law as instructed, or introducing extraneous facts.
Failure to Disclose
Concealing information during voir dire, such as prior convictions, relationships with parties, or biases.
III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
1. Right to an Impartial Jury
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment: Guarantees a defendant the right to an impartial jury.
Due Process Clause (14th Amendment) applies to state trials.
2. Standard for Addressing Jury Misconduct
Courts generally ask:
Did misconduct occur?
Did it affect a material aspect of the trial?
Should a new trial be granted?
IV. CHALLENGES TO JURORS
Juror challenges occur before trial (voir dire) and include:
1. Challenges for Cause
Grounds: Bias, relationship to parties, inability to follow the law.
Unlimited in number.
Example: A juror who states they already believe the defendant is guilty.
2. Peremptory Challenges
Can be used without stating a reason.
Limited in number.
Restrictions: Cannot be used to discriminate based on race or gender (Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)).
3. Striking Jurors Post-Trial
Rarely allowed. Usually requires a motion for a new trial based on discovered misconduct.
V. KEY U.S. CASE LAW ON JURY MISCONDUCT
1. Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954)
Facts: A juror was approached with a bribe attempt.
Holding: Any private communications with jurors during trial are presumed prejudicial.
Principle: Courts must investigate allegations of juror bribery immediately.
2. Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982)
Facts: Allegations of juror misconduct after trial.
Holding: Courts may presume jury impartiality; however, if evidence shows misconduct affecting verdict, a new trial may be warranted.
3. Remmer v. United States (Bribery) vs. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961)
Irvin: Juror exposure to pretrial media publicity and community bias rendered impartiality impossible.
Principle: Prejudice from community exposure or bias can violate the right to an impartial jury.
4. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993)
Juror misconduct must be objected to timely; appellate courts may apply harmless-error analysis if misconduct did not substantially influence verdict.
5. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)
Context: Peremptory challenges cannot be used solely to exclude jurors based on race.
Impact: Reinforced scrutiny of jury selection and protection against discrimination.
6. Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. ___ (2017)
Facts: Juror made explicit racial bias statements during deliberation.
Holding: Racially biased statements during deliberation can be grounds to overturn a verdict.
Significance: Exception to the no-impeachment rule for juror statements indicating racial bias.
VI. TYPES OF PRE-TRIAL AND POST-TRIAL CHALLENGES
| Type | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| For Cause | Unlimited; must show juror is biased or unfit | Juror knows the defendant personally |
| Peremptory | Limited; no reason needed | Excluding juror for perceived temperament |
| Motion for New Trial | Post-trial, due to discovered misconduct | Juror watched news about the case |
VII. NO-IMPEACHMENT RULE
Juror deliberations are generally protected from outside inquiry.
Exceptions:
Evidence of outside influence
Bribery or threats
Racial bias (Peña-Rodriguez)
VIII. IMPACT OF JURY MISCONDUCT
Mistrial / New Trial: When misconduct materially affects the verdict.
Appeals: Common ground for appeal if the trial court abused discretion.
Sanctions: Contempt, criminal charges, or disqualification of juror.
Reforms: Courts increasingly educate jurors on social media, limit outside contact, and monitor for misconduct.
IX. PREVENTION OF JURY MISCONDUCT
Clear instructions about media and internet use.
Screening during voir dire for bias.
Continuous juror monitoring in high-profile cases.
Immediate investigation of complaints.
X. SUMMARY
Jury misconduct undermines the fundamental right to a fair trial.
Challenges for cause and peremptory challenges protect impartiality.
Key cases:
Remmer v. United States → Bribery
Irvin v. Dowd → Community bias
Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado → Racial bias during deliberation
Batson v. Kentucky → Prohibited racial/gender discrimination in selection
Courts balance finality of verdicts against the right to an impartial jury, with the general presumption that jurors act impartially unless proven otherwise.
RELATED Blog
comments