Stealth juror

Last updated

A stealth juror or rogue juror is a person who, motivated by a hidden agenda in reference to a legal case, attempts to be seated on the jury and to influence the outcome. [1] Legal scholars believe that lawyers can identify stealth jurors by paying close attention to non-verbal behavior connected with deception and identifying discrepancies between answers to oral voir dire and written questionnaires. [2] A potential stealth juror may be hard to read and excessively reserved. [3] The potential for stealth jurors to nullify death penalty statutes has prompted calls to eliminate the requirement of a unanimous verdict in jury trials. [4] On the other hand, the argument has been raised that stealth jurors can serve as a defense against bad laws. [5]

Contents

Clay Conrad has stated that libertarian-minded voir dire members can and should increase their odds of getting on a jury by telling the prosecutors what they want to hear, without actually lying. [6] Jurors who lie to get on a jury can be charged with such offenses as contempt of court and obstruction of justice. Background checks are increasingly being used to catch jurors who lie about their criminal records. [7]

Incidents

Three stealth jurors allegedly lied to get on the jury in the trial of Scott Peterson for the murder of his wife Laci Peterson. [8] Peterson's lawyers argued that "[b]y getting on a nationally famous case [these jurors] may have aspirations of working their jury service into a book, interviews or some other form of celebrity and possible monetary benefit." The lawyers argued that Peterson would have a better chance of getting a fair trial outside of Los Angeles, the entertainment capital of the world, since many of the jurors there might be publicity hungry. [9] After the Martha Stewart trial, a juror who gave several media interviews after the conviction was accused by Stewart's lawyers of misconduct by lying to get on the jury. His statements to the media after the verdict proclaiming Stewart's conviction as a "victory for the little guy who loses money in the markets because of these types of transactions" were used by the lawyers for the defendants to argue that the verdict was tainted by this juror's alleged agenda to convict. [8]

In June 2008, after a judge dismissed a juror, during deliberations in a "gang murder" trial, who was found to have falsely denied her gang affiliation on a jury selection questionnaire, San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said: "It is our subjective opinion that she was a stealth juror, that she specifically wanted to be on this jury." [10] Juror dishonesty on questionnaires threatened the six-month-long federal corruption trial of former Illinois Governor George Ryan. [7]

John Grisham's book The Runaway Jury is about a stealth juror who—having made very meticulous, year-long preparations—serves in a tobacco-related case and by a variety of tricks manages to get other members of the jury to vote the way he intended. The film based on it is about a stealth juror in a gun-related case.

Related Research Articles

<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 regardless of whether they believe a defendant has 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murder of Laci Peterson</span> 2002 murder of an American woman in California

Laci Denise Peterson was an American woman killed while eight-months pregnant with her first child. Laci's husband, Scott Lee Peterson, was convicted of first-degree murder for her death and second-degree murder for the death of their unborn son. Originally sentenced to death, Scott's sentence was overturned in 2020, and, in 2021, he was re-sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Scott has maintained his innocence.

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case gave rise to the term Batson challenge, an objection to a peremptory challenge based on the standard established by the Supreme Court's decision in this case. Subsequent jurisprudence has resulted in the extension of Batson to civil cases and cases where jurors are excluded on the basis of sex.

In American and Australian law, the right of peremptory challenge is a right in jury selection for the attorneys to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason. Other potential jurors may be challenged for cause, i.e. by giving a good reason why they might be unable to reach a fair verdict, but the challenge will be considered by the presiding judge and may be denied. A peremptory challenge can be a major part of voir dire. A peremptory challenge also allows attorneys to veto a potential juror on a "hunch".

A death-qualified jury is a jury in a criminal law case in the United States in which the death penalty is a prospective sentence. Such a jury will be composed of jurors who:

  1. Are not categorically opposed to the imposition of capital punishment;
  2. Are not of the belief that the death penalty must be imposed in all instances of capital murder—that is, they would consider life imprisonment as a possible penalty.
<span class="mw-page-title-main">CSI effect</span> Influence of forensic science fiction on public perceptions

The CSI effect describes the various ways in which the exaggerated portrayal of forensic science on crime television shows such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation influences public perception. The term was first reported in a 2004 USA Today article describing the effect being made on trial jurors by television programs featuring forensic science.

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.

Scientific jury selection, often abbreviated SJS, is the use of social science techniques and expertise to choose favorable juries during a criminal or civil trial. Scientific jury selection is used during the jury selection phase of the trial, during which lawyers have the opportunity to question jurors. It almost always entails an expert's assistance in the attorney's use of peremptory challenges—the right to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason—during jury selection. The practice is currently confined to the American legal system.

Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state juries may convict a defendant by a less-than-unanimous verdict in a felony criminal case. The four-justice plurality opinion of the court, written by Justice White, affirmed the judgment of the Oregon Court of Appeals and held that there was no constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. Although federal law requires federal juries to reach criminal verdicts unanimously, the Court held Oregon's practice did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury and so allowed it to continue. In Johnson v. Louisiana, a case decided on the same day, the Court held that Louisiana's similar practice of allowing criminal convictions by a jury vote of 9–3 did not violate due process or equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Death of Caylee Anthony</span> Highly publicized 2008 death of an American girl.

Caylee Marie Anthony was an American girl who lived in Orlando, Florida, with her mother, Casey Marie Anthony, and her maternal grandparents, George and Cindy Anthony. On July 15, 2008, she was reported missing in a 9-1-1 call made by Cindy, who said she had not seen Caylee for 31 days. According to what Cindy told the operators, Casey had given varied explanations as to Caylee's whereabouts before eventually saying she had not seen Caylee for weeks. Casey later called the police and falsely told a police dispatcher that Caylee had been kidnapped by a nanny on June 9. Casey was charged with first-degree murder in October 2008 and pled not guilty.

Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case about racial issues in jury selection in death penalty cases. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the 7–2 majority, ruled that the prosecutor's use of peremptory strikes to remove African American jurors violated the Court's earlier holding in Batson v. Kentucky. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

Jury selection in the United States is the choosing of members of grand juries and petit juries for the purpose of conducting trial by jury in the United States.

Amy Singer is a Florida trial consultant and research psychologist. Singer's firm, Trial Consultants, Inc., which she founded in Miami in 1979, is one of the first trial consulting firms in the United States. Singer is an acknowledged authority in the field of litigation psychology, a discipline she helped pioneer. Her revolutionary approach, which consists of applying principles of psychology and using open-ended questions to elicit jurors’ value beliefs regarding key trial issues, changed the way that attorneys around the United States conduct voir dire. Largely through Singer's influence, this became a juror de-selection, not selection, process.

Wainwright vs. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning a criminal defendant, Johnny Paul Witt, who argued that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was sentenced to death for first degree murder by the state of Florida. He argued that the trial court had unconstitutionally hand-picked a jury during the voir dire process. This was because certain people were excused from the jury because they admitted pre-trial, that their decision of guilty or not guilty toward capital punishment would be swayed due to personal or religious beliefs.

Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40 (2014), was a unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court, ruling that jurors may not testify about what occurred during jury deliberations, even to expose dishonesty during jury selection or voir dire. The Court delivered its ruling on December 9, 2014.

Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 (2012), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that clarified the limits of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial of counts that a jury had previously unanimously voted to acquit on, when a mistrial is declared after the jury deadlocked on a lesser included offense.


Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356 (1972), was a court case in the U.S. Supreme Court involving the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana law that allowed less-than unanimous jury verdicts to convict persons charged with a felony, does not violate the Due Process clause. This case was argued on a similar basis as Apodaca v. Oregon.

References

  1. ↑ The Stealth Juror: Reality or Rarity?, American Bar Association, archived from the original on November 21, 2008
  2. ↑ Bodaken, Edward M.; Speckart, George R. (1996), "To down a stealth juror, strike first; there are ways to detect a fact-finder who tries to slip through voir dire on a mission to sabotage a case", The National Law Journal, ISSN   0162-7325
  3. ↑ AT Berry (1997), Selecting jurors, Litigation
  4. ↑ R Blecker (2007), The Road Not Considered: Revising New Jersey's Death Penalty
  5. ↑ Trent Hammerstein (July 2002). Stealth Juror: The Ultimate Defense Against Bad Laws and Government Tyranny. Paladin Press. ISBN   978-1-58160-338-5.
  6. ↑ Conrad, Clay S., Surviving Voir Dire (PDF)
  7. 1 2 Molly McDonough (October 24, 2006), Rogue Jurors, ABA Journal
  8. 1 2 Joel Cohen (April 7, 2004). "Celebrity Jurors". New York Law Journal.
  9. ↑ Diana Walsh & Stacy Finz (May 11, 2004). "Peterson Prosecutors Call Any Move to L.A. a Bad Trip". San Francisco Chronicle. pp. B2. Retrieved June 20, 2010.
  10. ↑ Michelle Durand (June 20, 2008). "Juror booted from murder trial". San Mateo Daily Journal.
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.