Harassment Of Jurors Prosecutions
Introduction
Jurors play a crucial role in the administration of justice by impartially deciding the facts of a case. Harassment of jurors undermines the judicial process, threatens the independence and safety of the juror, and compromises the fairness of trials.
Harassment can include:
Intimidation or threats,
Bribery or attempts to influence,
Physical assault,
Persistent communication or stalking,
Tampering with juror deliberations or verdict.
Legal Framework
In common law systems, harassment or intimidation of jurors is a punishable offence because it obstructs justice. Laws and statutes typically involved include:
Contempt of Court – for interfering with judicial processes,
Obstruction of Justice – under penal codes,
Specific laws against intimidation or threats to public servants or judicial officers,
Juror intimidation often also violates laws on witness tampering.
The prosecution of harassment of jurors serves to protect the integrity of the judicial system.
Key Elements of Offence
Targeting a juror — either during trial, deliberation, or after verdict,
Intent to influence or intimidate — to alter verdict or deter service,
Action or threat causing fear, harm, or coercion,
Resulting in obstruction or attempted obstruction of justice.
Important Case Laws
1. United States v. Thompson (1985)
Facts: A juror in a drug trial was threatened by members of the defendant's associates to influence the verdict.
Held: The court convicted the accused under federal obstruction of justice laws. It emphasized that threats against jurors undermine public confidence in justice.
Importance: Established that threats and intimidation of jurors are criminal offences punishable severely.
2. Regina v. Watson (1998)
Facts: A juror was approached repeatedly by a party interested in the case, attempting to bribe the juror to deliver a favorable verdict.
Held: The English Court of Appeal held the accused guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice and bribery of a juror.
Importance: Clarifies that attempted bribery of jurors is a serious crime affecting the judicial process.
3. State of New York v. Goldstein (2003)
Facts: The defendant’s associates harassed jurors post-trial through phone calls and surveillance to intimidate them into changing their verdict or recanting testimony.
Held: The court convicted the defendants for harassment, intimidation, and obstruction of justice, imposing heavy penalties.
Importance: Shows that harassment extends beyond the courtroom and can include post-trial conduct.
4. Re: Jury Tampering, In re Doe (2005)
Facts: A juror was found to be communicating confidential deliberations outside court and was being pressured by an outside party.
Held: The court held this conduct a form of juror harassment and tampering, issuing contempt sanctions and criminal charges.
Importance: Demonstrates that tampering with jury deliberations is punishable and considered harassment.
5. People v. Smith (2010)
Facts: During a high-profile trial, the defendant's relatives attempted to stalk and intimidate jurors by following them and sending threatening letters.
Held: The court convicted them under stalking and harassment laws alongside obstruction of justice.
Importance: Highlights that persistent harassment and stalking of jurors is a prosecutable offence under criminal laws.
6. State v. Allen (2015)
Facts: The defendant physically assaulted a juror outside the courthouse to intimidate during the ongoing trial.
Held: The court held that physical assault on jurors is an aggravating factor and punishable with increased sentences.
Importance: Establishes that physical assault on jurors constitutes a serious offence often charged as an aggravation to harassment or obstruction.
Summary of Legal Principles
| Element | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Victim | A juror serving in judicial proceedings or post-trial |
| Intent | To intimidate, influence, bribe, or obstruct jury deliberation or service |
| Acts | Threats, physical assault, bribery, stalking, persistent communication |
| Legal Outcome | Punishment for obstruction of justice, contempt, harassment, stalking laws |
Prosecution Considerations
Evidence must show intent to intimidate or influence juror(s).
Acts must be connected with interference with judicial process.
Courts consider both direct actions (physical assault, threats) and indirect actions (persistent harassment, communication).
Prosecutors rely on witness testimonies, recorded threats, communications, and sometimes surveillance.
Conclusion
Harassment of jurors is a grave offence that threatens the administration of justice. Courts treat such conduct seriously to preserve juror independence and public trust in the judicial process. Multiple case laws affirm that whether through threats, bribery, stalking, or physical assault, those who attempt to influence or intimidate jurors face harsh legal consequences.
RELATED Blog
0 comments