Case Studies On Jury Misconduct
Jury misconduct occurs when jurors violate rules governing their conduct during trial or deliberation. Such misconduct threatens the fairness, impartiality, and integrity of the justice system.
1. What is Jury Misconduct?
Jury misconduct includes:
A. Improper Communication
Jurors discussing the case with outsiders
Communicating with parties, lawyers, or witnesses
B. Independent Research
Using the internet, visiting crime scenes, reading news reports
Accessing information not presented in court
C. Bias or Prejudgment
Racial or gender bias
Preconceived opinions influencing verdicts
D. Disobeying Judicial Instructions
Considering excluded evidence
Discussing the case before deliberation
E. External Influence
Bribery, threats, attempts to sway decisions
2. Effects of Jury Misconduct
Mistrials or overturned verdicts
Violation of right to fair trial
Appeals and retrials, increasing delays and costs
Erosion of public trust in the justice system
Courts treat misconduct seriously because juries must base decisions only on evidence presented in court.
3. Detailed Case Law Illustrating Jury Misconduct
Below are more than five major cases demonstrating how courts handle misconduct.
Case 1: Bushell’s Case (UK, 1670)
Context
Although historic, this case established the principle of jury independence. Jurors refused to convict defendants despite pressure. They were imprisoned for contempt.
Holding
The Court of Common Pleas ruled that jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts, even if the judge disagrees.
Relevance to Modern Misconduct
Established that jurors must be free from external influence.
Formed the foundation for preventing coercion of jurors.
Case 2: Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (USA, 2017)
Context
After a conviction, jurors reported that another juror made derogatory racial remarks and based his decision on racial stereotypes.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that racial bias in jury deliberations violates the Sixth Amendment, and courts may investigate such misconduct.
Importance
Established an exception to the “no impeachment rule” (which normally prevents inquiry into deliberations).
Recognized bias as a form of misconduct capable of invalidating verdicts.
Case 3: R v. Young (Stephen) (UK, 1995)
Context
Jurors in a murder case used a ouija board séance in a hotel to “consult” the victim's spirit for guidance during deliberations.
Holding
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction, ruling that jurors' conduct constituted extreme misconduct.
Importance
Reinforced rule that deliberations must be based only on courtroom evidence.
Established that out-of-court influences invalidate verdicts.
Case 4: R v. Mirza (UK, 2004)
Context
A juror alleged racial bias and improper pressure within the jury room. Other jurors discouraged reporting it during the trial.
Holding
The House of Lords reaffirmed that courts generally cannot inquire into deliberations, except in cases involving external influence.
Importance
Despite upholding the rule, the case led to reforms emphasizing juror education on misconduct.
Highlighted conflict between jury secrecy and fairness.
Case 5: R v. Thompson (Canada, 1991)
Context
A juror conducted independent research about sexual assault myths and shared it with the jury during deliberations.
Holding
The Supreme Court of Canada found misconduct and ordered a new trial.
Importance
Reinforced ban on outside information, even if the juror believes it’s helpful.
Ensures the accused's right to a trial based solely on admitted evidence.
Case 6: People v. Maragh (USA, 1998)
Context
Two jurors consulted medical textbooks at home to verify expert testimony regarding cause of death.
Holding
The New York Court of Appeals ruled that this misconduct tainted the verdict, ordering a retrial.
Importance
Shows how independent research undermines the adversarial process.
Reinforces that jurors cannot become their own experts.
Case 7: R v. Farah (Australia, 2004)
Context
A juror engaged in unauthorized communication with a witness during the trial.
Holding
The Court ruled this constituted serious misconduct, and a mistrial was declared.
Importance
Shows zero tolerance for juror-witness communication.
Underscores need for juror instructions regarding conduct.
Case 8: State v. Abdi (USA, 2012)
Context
During a sexual assault trial, a juror posted updates on social media and discussed case details online.
Holding
The court found misconduct and overturned the conviction.
Importance
Demonstrated evolving challenge of social media misuse by jurors.
Led to judicial emphasis on restricting juror internet use.
Case 9: Attorney-General v. Fraill (UK, 2011)
Context
A juror contacted a defendant via Facebook during the trial.
Holding
The juror was jailed for contempt of court—the first such case in the UK.
Importance
Highlighted risks of digital-era misconduct.
Reinforced need for strict social media instructions.
4. Key Observations from Case Law
A. Patterns of Misconduct
Cases show recurring issues such as:
Internet research
Social media discussion
Bias and prejudicial comments
Unauthorized communication
B. Courts Respond Harshly
Retrials
Mistrials
Convictions quashed
Sometimes imprisonment of jurors
C. Reforms Encouraged
The case law has prompted many reforms:
Stronger jury instructions
Restrictions on phones during deliberations
Juror education on bias
Court monitoring of online activity risks
5. Conclusion: Effectiveness of Reforms
Jury misconduct threatens the foundation of a fair trial. Case law across jurisdictions demonstrates that:
Courts treat misconduct seriously
Misconduct often results in overturned verdicts
Reforms such as clearer instructions, juror education, and restrictions on technology significantly reduce misconduct
However, courts still face challenges in the digital age, where information is easily accessible and communication is instantaneous.
RELATED Blog
comments