Juror misconduct

Last updated

Juror misconduct is when the law of the court is violated by a member of the jury while a court case is in progression or after it has reached a verdict. [1]

Contents

Misconduct can take several forms:

Bias

"An inclination of temperament or outlook; especially: a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgement" [2]

An example mentioned in Eltis's article "Courts, Litigants and the Digital Age. Law, Ethics and Practice" is a juror in Manchester who tweeted openly throughout a rape trial. She was found to be tweeting to her friends and asking them to poll whether they thought that the man being tried was guilty or not; whether he committed the rape or not. [3] Another example was the case of Wardlaw v. State where a member of the jury, against the direct instructions by the judge to not use the Internet, looked up the definition of the illness that the individual on trial was stated to be suffering. This jury member also looked up symptoms and whether lying was an effect of suffering with this mental illness. [4] The juror did learn that lying was in fact a "symptom"; however, she chose to gather this information during the discussion to find a verdict. [4]

Social media

The Internet has frequently been used by jury members to gain access to additional information about a certain mental illness, or a broader definition or they are outsourcing trial information. [3] The legal system and both the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and both the 5th amendment [5] and 6th amendment [6] in the United States are built around the fact that everyone is required to have a fair trial free from bias. [7] [8] There have been multiple instances where certain cases required retrials because of bias on the part of one or more of the jury members. The Internet, while it is the primary source to find additional information and details about another individual, does not necessarily mean that the information it provides is correct or accurate. According to Bell’s article, Juror Misconduct and the Internet, the use of the Internet within trials is not a new occurrence. It has been found in many cases, jurors who have searched for words unfamiliar to them, done extensive research, "engaged in at-home experiments, visited accident scenes, and otherwise obtained specialized knowledge". [9]

Forms of Internet information

Traditional sources

These sources seem to revolve around cases which include members of the jury searching for additional information about a certain term or illness that is significant in the case at hand. Usually the main outlets are encyclopedic definitions or Wikipedia. [9] The use of the Internet has also given jurors the ability to easily and readily access information that they may want to find out about. As stated in Bell's article, many jurors do not have the time during breaks to go out to a library and locate hard copy sources of information needed, thus making the Internet the primary source because all it requires is the simple push of a button. [9]

Novel sources

This type of information includes access to different sources of information such as:

(1) "information about parties and witnesses" referring to information about a defendant’s past, background information on a specific employer or business, both publicized information and private information such as driving records, and tickets. All this information is easily accessible over the Internet and all this information was shared among jury members in specific cases. The main outlets usually include Twitter, Facebook, and online encyclopedias and dictionaries. This would overthrow the entire trial thus causing an automatic mistrial. [10]

(2) "Scientific and Technical Information". [11] This source of information refers to using the Internet to perform their own form of investigation on the side without actually having to go to the physical scene of the crime. This form of personal investigation may use Google Earth to acquire specific locations and specific fine points about a crime scene such as neighbourhoods, distances between certain homes and areas, etc. [11]

Since the Internet is frequently used to taint certain verdicts, many judges have put bans and limitations on jury members and their use of the Internet. [12] When certain individuals are called to be on jury duty, they are told they are not allowed to communicate with other people who are not involved with the case, and they are told they are not allowed to use the Internet to research anything or to send out or receive any information that would compromise the integrity and fairness of the case at hand. This is definitely a challenge as the Internet is ever present in our society today. [13] Another major problem, aside from the fact that a large majority of people have access to the Internet, is that the information individuals find may not be the entire truth, or may not be 100% accurate. When outside information is brought into a trial, it causes difficulties in ensuring no bias and a fair trial. Having outside information that is also inaccurate adds more bias and more unfairness to a trial. [12]

Methods used to prevent bias

One method is jury sequestration, housing the jurors in a hotel under the control of court officers and limiting their access to communications and people other than court staff.

Questionnaire

This method is slightly more effective because not only does it minimize the number of jurors to stand during trial, therefore eliminating potential bias and use of outside sources, but it "would also systematically exclude younger jurors and those who otherwise have basic experience using computers and the Internet…". [14] According to Bell’s article, the main reason behind why outside research is often conducted is because of the desire to satisfy one's curiosity. [15]

If a jury member is discovered to have brought in outside information, and juror misconduct is clearly present, then the jury member in question may actually be fined by the judge. [16] This seems to be a deterrent to try and prevent future juror misconduct mishaps. It has been found to not be a successful deterrent because it solely shrinks the pool of individuals who wish to participate. [17] A plausible way to prevent this misconduct from taking place is ensuring that the jury members, before the trial, understand completely "what constitutes research, their curiosity, and their perceived "moral duty" to render verdicts based on complete information". [17] Another successful deterrent is to show how using outside influence is negative, how the life of the individual on trial is in the hands of these chosen jury members (Bell, 94) and to take away their sources of internet, such as phones, before the actual trial commences. [18]

Mistrials and alternatives

Mistrials are the common response in cases where juror misconduct has occurred. Mistrials can be costly and thus will be avoided if possible. When mistrials are seen as a solution, they are compared to wasted assets “when it could have easily been avoided”. [18] If the possibility presents itself, according to Eltis’s article, simply dismissing the misconduct as unacceptable would be less destructive than a mistrial. [19] Dismissing this misconduct will be destructive since it would not cause the trial to be fair. Overall, it is felt that a mistrial is quite a harsh decision, especially since Internet use by a juror is considered “impossible to control”. [19]

Punishment

Under the common law, jurors could be charged with contempt of court if they were found to have carried out independent research into the case they were trying. Proving that a juror was guilty of a contempt required proof that he/she had acted contrary to a judicial order (e.g. to refrain from carrying out research online). This created uncertainty and possible inconsistency, as judicial directions to jurors could vary. The Law Commission of England & Wales felt it would be better to create a separate criminal offence, as this would make the law clearer for jurors. The Law Commission also felt that the creation of a new offence would give jurors suspected of misconduct greater due process protections, as contempt was tried according to summary court procedure, whereas the proposed offence would be an indictable offence, and therefore subject to the due process protections of a full jury trial. [20]

The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 brought these proposals into law. As Crosby explains:

The Act makes it an offence for jurors to ‘research the case during the trial period’, to ‘disclose [improper] information to another member of the jury during the trial period’, and to engage in ‘conduct from which it may reasonably be concluded that the [juror] intends to try the issue otherwise than on the basis of the evidence presented in the proceedings on the issue’. Those found guilty of one of the new offences will be liable to imprisonment for up to two years, and will be disqualified from further service for a decade. What distinguishes these new offences from the existing option of using contempt proceedings is the fact jurors would now be proceeded against on indictment: that they would be tried by their peers for alleged misconduct. This represents a significant change in juror management techniques, as it is probable that criminal trial jurors accused of misconduct have never been tried in this way. [21]

Former jurors found guilty of one of the new offences will be disqualified from jury service for ten years, even if they have been fined rather than imprisoned. [22] Such disqualifications had previously required: a sentence of imprisonment; a community order; a community rehabilitation order; a community punishment order; a community punishment and rehabilitation order; a drug treatment and testing order; or a drug abstinence order. [23] The 2015 Act introduces for the first time the principle that a fine may also be sufficient for temporary juror disqualification.

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 4 "USLegal Definitions"
  2. ↑ Merriam-Webster. An Encyclopædia Britannica Company (2012).
  3. 1 2 Eltis, Karen. "Courts, Litigants and the Digital Age. Law, Ethics and Practice". University of Ottawa. Columbia Law School. p. 108.
  4. 1 2 Eltis, p. 109.
  5. ↑ "Fifth Amendment".
  6. ↑ "Sixth Amendment".
  7. ↑ Legal Information Institute(LII). "Fifth Amendment: An Overview". Cornell University Law School, 2012.
  8. ↑ Legal Information Institute(LII)."Sixth Amendment: Amendment VI. Cornell University Law School, 2012.
  9. 1 2 3 William Bell, Daniel. "Juror Misconduct and the Internet". American Journal of Criminal Law, 2010, p. 83.
  10. ↑ Bell 2010, pp. 84 & 85
  11. 1 2 Bell 2010, p. 85.
  12. 1 2 Bell 2010, p. 86.
  13. ↑ Bell 2010, p.87
  14. ↑ Bell 2010, p.87&88.
  15. ↑ Bell 2010, p.92.
  16. ↑ Bell 2010, p.88.
  17. 1 2 Bell 2010, p. 94.
  18. 1 2 Bell 2010, p. 97.
  19. 1 2 Eltis, p. 113.
  20. ↑ Law Commission, The (2013). Contempt of Court (1): Juror Misconduct and Internet Publications. LAW COM No 340. pp. 62–68. ISBN   9780102987362 – via https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/274266/0860.pdf.{{cite book}}: External link in |via= (help)
  21. ↑ Crosby, K (2015). "Juror Punishment, Juror Guidance and the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015". Criminal Law Review: 578–593.
  22. ↑ "Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015": s77.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  23. ↑ "Juries Act 1974": Sch2, Pt2, para7.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Related Research Articles

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the crime of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. A similar attitude toward a legislative body is termed contempt of Parliament or contempt of Congress. The verb for "to commit contempt" is contemn and a person guilty of this is a contemnor.

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law. In civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. Variation in common law countries is the peremptory plea, which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle non bis in idem.

An indictment is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that use the concept of felonies, the most serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that do not use the felonies concept often use that of an indictable offence, an offence that requires an indictment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury trial</span> Type of legal trial

A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.

Jury nullification (US/UK), jury equity (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK) occurs when the jury in a criminal trial gives a not guilty verdict despite a defendant having clearly broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses.

Voir dire is a legal phrase for a variety of procedures connected with jury trials. It originally referred to an oath taken by jurors to tell the truth. This term is also used informally to describe the practice of jury selection in certain jurisdictions.

A hung jury, also called a deadlocked jury, is a judicial jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after extended deliberation and is unable to reach the required unanimity or supermajority. Hung jury usually results in the case being tried again.

Jury tampering is the crime of unduly attempting to influence the composition and/or decisions of a jury during the course of a trial. The means by which this crime could be perpetrated can include attempting to discredit potential jurors to ensure they will not be selected for duty. Once selected, jurors could be bribed or intimidated to act in a certain manner on duty. It could also involve making unauthorized contact with them for the purpose of introducing prohibited outside information and then arguing for a mistrial. In the United States, people have also been charged with jury tampering for handing out pamphlets and flyers indicating that jurors have certain rights and obligations, including an obligation to vote their conscience notwithstanding the instructions they are given by the judge.

A publication ban is a court order which prohibits the public or media from disseminating certain details of an otherwise public judicial proceeding. In Canada, publication bans are most commonly issued when the safety or reputation of a victim or witness may be hindered by having their identity openly broadcast in the press. They are also commonly issued when the crime involves minors or is sexual in nature.

Diplock courts were criminal courts in Northern Ireland for non-jury trial of specified serious crimes. They were introduced by the Northern Ireland Act 1973, used for political and terrorism-related cases during the Troubles, and abolished by the Justice and Security Act 2007. Non-jury trial remains possible in Northern Ireland on a case-by-case certification rather than automatically applying for scheduled offences.

Jury selection is the selection of the people who will serve on a jury during a jury trial. The group of potential jurors is first selected from among the community using a reasonably random method. Jury lists are compiled from voter registrations and driver license or ID renewals. From those lists, summonses are mailed. A panel of jurors is then assigned to a courtroom.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trial</span> Coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information in a tribunal

In law, a trial is a coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information in a tribunal, a formal setting with the authority to adjudicate claims or disputes. One form of tribunal is a court. The tribunal, which may occur before a judge, jury, or other designated trier of fact, aims to achieve a resolution to their dispute.

<i>R v Pan; R v Sawyer</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Pan; R v Sawyer, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 344 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the criminal jury trial system. The Court held that rules against admitting evidence indicating the decision-making process of a jury were constitutional.

Jury duty or jury service is service as a juror in a legal proceeding.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Juries in England and Wales</span> Law of trial by jury in England and Wales

In the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, there is a long tradition of jury trial that has evolved over centuries. Liability to be called upon for jury service is covered by the Juries Act 1974.

In the United States, jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. It has its origins in colonial America under British law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return.

A citizen’s right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Grand juries in the United States</span> Groups of citizens empowered by United States federal or state law to conduct legal proceedings

Grand juries in the United States are groups of citizens empowered by United States federal or state law to conduct legal proceedings, chiefly investigating potential criminal conduct and determining whether criminal charges should be brought. The grand jury originated under the law of England and spread through colonization to other jurisdictions as part of the common law. Today, however, the United States is one of only two jurisdictions, along with Liberia, that continues to use the grand jury to screen criminal indictments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which made a number of changes to the criminal justice system. It was introduced to the House of Commons on 5 February 2014 by Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling and received Royal Assent on 12 February 2015.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.