Jury Bias And Challenges
Jury Bias and Challenges: Detailed Explanation
A jury trial is a cornerstone of criminal and civil justice systems in many countries. For a fair trial, it is essential that jurors are impartial. Jury bias arises when a juror's judgment is influenced by prejudice, preconceptions, or external factors rather than evidence presented in the court. Bias can be actual or implied:
Actual Bias: When a juror has a clear, conscious prejudice affecting judgment.
Implied or Presumed Bias: Bias is presumed due to circumstances that make impartiality impossible, even if the juror denies prejudice.
Challenges to Jury
A party in a trial can challenge jurors in two ways:
Challenges for Cause: Arise when there is evidence of actual or implied bias. The party must convince the court that a juror cannot be impartial.
Peremptory Challenges: These are challenges without providing any reason. However, they cannot be used to discriminate based on race, gender, or ethnicity (per Batson v. Kentucky, U.S., 1986).
Case Laws on Jury Bias
1. R v. Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy (1924, UK)
Facts:
A clerk of the court was also a solicitor for one of the parties in a civil case. The case was decided by the magistrates.
Held:
Lord Hewart CJ stated: “Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.”
Principle: Even if no actual bias is proven, any situation creating a reasonable apprehension of bias is enough to invalidate proceedings.
Significance:
Introduced the principle of apparent bias, which is widely applied in both civil and criminal trials.
2. R v. Abdroikov (UK, 2011)
Facts:
The defendant argued that one of the jurors was biased because of social media activity expressing opinions about the defendant’s ethnic background.
Held:
The court ruled that jurors must avoid media and social influence.
Principle: Exposure to prejudicial information outside the courtroom can create implied bias.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the importance of juror impartiality in the digital age.
3. R v. Mirza (UK, 2004)
Facts:
A juror had prior knowledge of the defendant from a newspaper article.
The defendant was convicted, but the verdict was challenged.
Held:
Court held that if the juror’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned, there is a risk of miscarriage of justice.
Significance:
Emphasized that even indirect exposure to prejudicial material can constitute bias.
4. R v. Wang (UK, 2005)
Facts:
During a murder trial, a juror conducted independent research about forensic evidence at home.
Held:
The juror was removed; trial was allowed to continue after replacing the juror.
Principle: Jurors must base their verdict solely on evidence presented in court.
Significance:
Strengthened the rule against extraneous influence affecting juror decision-making.
5. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood (U.S., 1984)
Facts:
Juror failed to disclose prior involvement in a similar case during voir dire.
Held:
U.S. Supreme Court held that nondisclosure can amount to actual bias if it affected impartiality.
Significance:
Established that honest and complete disclosure during jury selection is critical.
6. Dyer v. Watson (Australia, 1999)
Facts:
A juror had expressed racial prejudice in discussions outside court.
Held:
High Court of Australia set aside the verdict due to implied bias, even though there was no direct evidence of affecting the verdict.
Principle:
Reinforces the “reasonable apprehension of bias” test from McCarthy (1924).
7. R v. Gough (UK, 1993)
Facts:
A juror had a close connection with a witness in the case.
Held:
The court held that a verdict may be set aside if there is a real danger of bias, emphasizing objectivity of the apprehension test.
Significance:
Clarified that courts must consider whether a fair-minded observer would conclude that bias is possible.
Summary of Principles from Case Law
Apparent Bias Principle: Justice must be seen to be done (McCarthy).
Impartiality Requirement: Jurors cannot rely on outside information or media (Abdroikov, Mirza, Wang).
Disclosure Obligation: Jurors must honestly answer voir dire questions (McDonough).
Reasonable Apprehension Test: Courts use the standard of a fair-minded observer (Gough).
Extraneous Influence: Social connections, racial bias, or prior knowledge can invalidate verdicts (Dyer, Abdroikov).
RELATED Blog
0 comments