Jury Selection And Misconduct
Although India abolished the jury system after the Nanavati case (1961), jury trials continue to be significant in countries like the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, and the principles developed by courts in those jurisdictions are often used comparatively in legal research.
Jury selection and misconduct are two key areas directly affecting fair trial rights, impartiality, and due process.
I. JURY SELECTION
1. Meaning of Jury Selection
Jury selection (also called voir dire) is the process by which attorneys and courts choose impartial jurors from a pool of citizens. This includes:
Removing biased jurors
Ensuring diversity
Preventing discrimination
Verifying jurors’ ability to understand evidence
Two types of challenges during jury selection:
Peremptory Challenges – Removal of a juror without giving a reason.
Challenges for Cause – Removal based on demonstrated bias, prior knowledge, or incapacity.
II. JURY MISCONDUCT
Jury misconduct occurs when jurors violate legal instructions, including:
Discussing the case outside the courtroom
Researching information online
Receiving external influence
Concealing bias during selection
Communicating with parties or witnesses
Consuming media reports about the case
Misconduct can lead to:
Mistrial
Reversal of verdict
Disqualification of juror
Disciplinary action
III. DETAILED CASE LAWS ON JURY SELECTION
1. Batson v. Kentucky (1986, US Supreme Court)
Facts
A Black defendant argued that the prosecutor excluded Black jurors using peremptory challenges.
Judgment
Court held racial discrimination in jury selection violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Prosecution must give race-neutral reasons when accused of discriminatory exclusion.
Significance
Established the Batson Rule: race-based juror exclusion is unconstitutional.
Expanded later to cover gender, ethnicity, and other protected categories.
2. J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. (1994)
Facts
State attorneys excluded male jurors in a paternity case.
Judgment
Supreme Court held gender-based juror exclusion also violates equality principles.
Significance
Extended Batson protections beyond race.
Reinforced idea that jury must reflect impartiality, not stereotypes.
3. R. v. Williams (1998, Supreme Court of Canada)
Facts
A Black defendant claimed systemic racism prevented him from having a fair jury.
Judgment
Court held that diverse jury selection processes are essential to public confidence in justice.
Significance
Recognized systemic discrimination as a valid ground in challenging jury procedures.
4. Strauder v. West Virginia (1880)
Facts
State law prevented Black citizens from serving on juries.
Judgment
Court ruled that racial exclusion from jury service is unconstitutional.
Significance
Landmark case recognizing equality in civic participation.
Set foundation for later jury discrimination jurisprudence.
5. Kociolek v. State (2002, New Jersey Court) – Juror Dishonesty During Voir Dire
Facts
Juror concealed bias during questioning.
Judgment
Court declared verdict invalid due to juror dishonesty affecting impartiality.
Significance
Highlights importance of truthful responses during jury selection.
IV. DETAILED CASE LAWS ON JURY MISCONDUCT
6. Remmer v. United States (1954)
Facts
A juror was approached by an outsider offering a bribe during trial.
Judgment
Supreme Court held such communication creates a presumption of prejudice, requiring an investigation.
Significance
Any external influence on a juror threatens the fairness of trial.
7. Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017)
Facts
After conviction, jurors reported racial comments by another juror.
Judgment
Court held that racial bias by a juror during deliberation violates the 6th Amendment right to an impartial jury.
Significance
Racially biased jury deliberations justify overturning verdicts.
8. Tanner v. United States (1987)
Facts
Jurors were allegedly intoxicated during trial and deliberations.
Judgment
Court held that juror misconduct related to mental processes cannot be used to challenge the verdict.
Significance
Differentiates between “internal” and “external” misconduct.
Internal misconduct usually does not overturn verdicts unless exceptional.
9. United States v. Fumo (2011) – Social Media Misconduct
Facts
Juror posted trial-related comments on Facebook and Twitter.
Judgment
Court found this constituted misconduct but held it did not substantially prejudice the case.
Significance
Court acknowledged new form of misconduct: online communication.
Led to stricter judicial instructions banning social media use during trials.
10. R. v. Khan (2001, Canada)
Facts
Juror conducted private research online about forensic evidence.
Judgment
Verdict overturned because external research violated impartiality.
Significance
Shows how internet access creates new risks for jury integrity.
V. EFFECTIVENESS OF JURY LAWS AND REFORMS
Strengths
Courts strictly prohibit discrimination in jury selection.
Misconduct rules uphold fairness and protect impartiality.
Batson-type rules ensure diverse jury pools.
Challenges
Implicit bias remains hard to detect.
Social media increases risk of external influence.
Voir dire honesty is difficult to verify.
Reforms
Stronger instructions on digital conduct.
Broader questioning during voir dire.
Increased monitoring of juror behavior.
Educational programs on juror responsibilities.
VI. Conclusion
Jury selection and misconduct jurisprudence show that courts:
Protect fairness, equality, and impartiality.
Do not tolerate discrimination in juror selection.
Treat any external influence on jurors as serious misconduct.
Continually adapt laws to emerging threats like social media, online research, and implicit bias.
Cases such as Batson, Pena-Rodriguez, Remmer, and Tanner reflect judicial commitment to ensuring that jury trials uphold justice, integrity, and constitutional rights.
RELATED Blog
comments