Jury Trials And Misconduct
Jury Trials and Misconduct: Case Studies and Legal Principles
Jury trials are a cornerstone of common law systems, ensuring that defendants are judged by their peers. However, jury misconduct can undermine the fairness of a trial. Misconduct can include:
Discussing the case outside the courtroom
Using independent research or social media
Accepting bribes or favors
Bias or prejudice
Courts have developed doctrines to address these issues, balancing the defendant’s right to a fair trial under the 6th Amendment (U.S.) or analogous laws in other jurisdictions.
1. United States v. Duke (1999) – External Research Misconduct
Facts
During a federal fraud trial, a juror independently researched financial terminology online and discussed it with fellow jurors.
Legal Issue
Does a juror using external information invalidate a verdict?
Court Findings
Courts reiterated that jurors must only rely on evidence presented in court.
Using external research violates the principle of impartiality.
Outcome
The verdict was overturned, and a new trial was ordered.
Established precedent: juror research outside the record constitutes misconduct.
2. Irvin v. Dowd (1961) – Prejudicial Publicity
Facts
Leslie Irvin was charged with multiple murders in a small Indiana town. Before trial, newspapers published stories calling him guilty. Most of the jurors admitted they had already formed opinions.
Legal Issue
Does pretrial publicity and juror bias violate the defendant’s right to an impartial jury?
Court Findings
The Supreme Court ruled that a trial cannot be fair if jurors have predetermined opinions.
Juror misconduct can occur if jurors are influenced by external sources, including media.
Outcome
Conviction reversed due to violation of the 6th Amendment.
Established the importance of voir dire and juror impartiality.
3. Turner v. Louisiana (1965) – Juror Bias and Communication
Facts
In a murder case, jurors were found communicating privately with witnesses outside the courtroom.
Legal Issue
Can private communication with witnesses constitute misconduct invalidating a trial?
Court Findings
Supreme Court held that any ex parte communication with witnesses or parties undermines fairness.
The defendant has the right to a jury trial free from outside influence.
Outcome
Conviction was reversed, emphasizing strict limits on juror contact with witnesses.
4. Remmer v. United States (1954) – Bribery and Influence
Facts
During a federal trial, a juror received a bribe offer to vote in favor of the defendant.
Legal Issue
Does the attempt to bribe a juror constitute misconduct requiring a new trial?
Court Findings
The Supreme Court ruled that any attempt to influence a juror is presumed prejudicial.
The trial court must investigate alleged juror bribery immediately.
Outcome
The Court ordered a hearing on the bribery allegation.
Established that juror corruption is per se prejudicial, even if actual influence is unproven.
5. Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017) – Racial Bias in the Jury Room
Facts
After a murder conviction, jurors admitted that racial bias influenced their deliberations.
Legal Issue
Can evidence of racial bias in jury deliberations justify overturning a verdict?
Court Findings
U.S. Supreme Court held that racial bias in deliberations violates the defendant’s constitutional rights.
Normally, juror deliberations are private, but an exception exists for clear racial bias.
Outcome
Conviction vacated.
Set precedent that courts can consider internal juror statements regarding racial prejudice.
6. People v. Zuber (1999, California) – Juror Misconduct and Contact
Facts
Jurors in a murder trial communicated with the victim’s family outside court.
Legal Issue
Does unauthorized communication with interested parties compromise the trial?
Court Findings
Court emphasized that any juror communication outside the official trial record can be grounds for declaring a mistrial.
Protects the principle that jury deliberation must be insulated from outside influence.
Outcome
Mistrial declared.
Reinforced protocols for instructing jurors about prohibited contact.
7. United States v. Thomas (1999) – Use of Social Media
Facts
A juror in a federal case posted opinions about the trial on a personal blog during deliberations.
Legal Issue
Does expressing opinions online during a trial constitute misconduct?
Court Findings
Courts found that using social media to discuss active cases violates the duty of juror confidentiality and impartiality.
Judges must consider whether outside communication affected deliberations.
Outcome
New trial ordered.
Established early precedent on juror internet misconduct.
Key Principles from Case Law
Jurors must decide solely on evidence in court
(Duke, Turner)
External influence, including media, research, or social contact, can be grounds for reversal
(Irvin, Zuber, Thomas)
Bribery or attempts to influence jurors are automatically prejudicial
(Remmer)
Racial or discriminatory bias in deliberations violates constitutional rights
(Peña-Rodriguez)
Trial courts have a duty to investigate allegations of misconduct
(Remmer, Peña-Rodriguez)
Summary Table of Jury Misconduct Cases
| Case | Type of Misconduct | Legal Principle | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duke (1999) | Juror external research | Jurors must rely only on trial evidence | New trial ordered |
| Irvin v. Dowd (1961) | Pretrial publicity bias | Impartial jury required | Conviction reversed |
| Turner v. Louisiana (1965) | Private communication with witnesses | No outside influence allowed | Conviction reversed |
| Remmer v. US (1954) | Bribery attempt | Presumed prejudicial | Hearing ordered |
| Peña-Rodriguez (2017) | Racial bias in jury | Racial bias violates constitutional rights | Conviction vacated |
| Zuber (1999) | Contact with interested parties | No communication outside trial | Mistrial declared |
| Thomas (1999) | Social media posts | Online discussion violates impartiality | New trial ordered |
RELATED Blog
comments