Jury Misconduct
I. What Is Jury Misconduct?
Jury misconduct occurs when one or more jurors act in a way that violates the instructions of the court, threatens the defendant’s right to a fair trial, or compromises the impartiality and integrity of the jury process. Jury misconduct can lead to mistrials, reversal on appeal, or even new trials.
Common Forms of Jury Misconduct
Exposure to external information
– Researching facts online, reading news articles, consulting dictionaries, or using social media.
Improper communication
– Discussing the case with non-jurors; receiving outside influence.
Concealment during voir dire
– Failing to disclose biases, prior convictions, or relevant experiences when questioned.
Prejudicial behavior
– Racist comments, intimidation, or bullying other jurors.
Independent investigation
– Visiting crime scenes, conducting experiments, or gathering evidence.
Improper conduct inside deliberations
– Using chance verdicts (coin flips), consuming drugs/alcohol, or referencing extrinsic materials.
II. DETAILED CASE LAW DISCUSSION
Below are six major cases (U.S. Supreme Court and federal/state appellate courts) that explore various aspects of jury misconduct.
1. Remmer v. United States (1954)
Issue: Outside influence on a juror
In Remmer, a juror reported that a third party suggested he could profit from influencing the verdict. The trial judge investigated quietly without informing the defense or holding a hearing. The Supreme Court held that any private communication with a juror about the case is presumptively prejudicial.
Key Principles Established
When external contact occurs, courts must hold a Remmer hearing where the defendant can challenge the influence.
The burden shifts to the government to show the contact was harmless.
Protects the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
Importance
This case is frequently cited for the presumption of prejudice when jurors are subject to outside interference.
2. Tanner v. United States (1987)
Issue: Juror intoxication during trial
In Tanner, defense counsel argued jurors were drunk, using drugs, and sleeping through trial. However, the Supreme Court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) prevents juror testimony about internal influences on the jury, including drug and alcohol use during deliberations.
Key Principles Established
Misconduct arising from jurors’ mental state or behavior inside the deliberation room is generally not admissible to impeach a verdict.
Only external influences (bribes, threats, outside research, etc.) allow juror testimony.
Importance
Tanner draws a crucial line between internal and external jury misconduct and bars many claims about juror incompetence.
3. Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017)
Issue: Racial bias within jury deliberations
In this landmark decision, two jurors reported that another juror made racist statements about the defendant’s guilt. The Supreme Court ruled that racism is an exception to the Tanner rule: jurors can testify about racist statements during deliberations.
Key Principles Established
Racial animus is uniquely harmful and violates the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
Evidence of clear and explicit racial bias during deliberations must be considered, even if it comes from juror testimony.
The Court created a constitutional exception to FRE 606(b).
Importance
This case significantly expanded remedies for jury misconduct when racial prejudice is involved.
4. Smith v. Phillips (1982)
Issue: Juror job application to the prosecutor’s office during trial
During a criminal trial, one juror applied for employment at the prosecutor’s office. The defense argued this was inherently prejudicial. The Supreme Court held that the correct approach is to examine the juror’s bias through a hearing, not automatic reversal.
Key Principles Established
Juror misconduct claims require a hearing to assess actual bias.
The Constitution does not guarantee a perfect jury; it guarantees a fair one.
Objective evidence must show the juror could not remain impartial.
Importance
Smith established that even suspicious conduct (e.g., job applications, friendships, associations) must be evaluated for actual rather than presumed bias.
5. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood (1984)
Issue: Juror dishonesty during voir dire
A juror failed to disclose that his son was seriously injured in a similar accident to the one on trial. The Supreme Court devised a test for when a verdict can be overturned based on juror dishonesty.
Key Principles Established
To obtain a new trial, a party must show:
The juror failed to answer honestly a material question during voir dire, AND
A truthful answer would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.
Importance
This is the governing standard for cases involving juror concealment or dishonesty in jury selection.
6. United States v. Thomas (2d Cir. 1997)
Issue: Removing a juror during deliberations for alleged nullification
A juror was removed for allegedly refusing to follow the law and wanting to acquit for reasons unrelated to the evidence. The Second Circuit reversed the dismissal, warning that courts must be extremely careful when evaluating jurors’ deliberation conduct.
Key Principles Established
A juror cannot be removed simply because the court suspects jury nullification.
Courts must not intrude on the privacy of deliberations unless clear evidence of misconduct exists.
Slight suspicion is insufficient; misconduct must be unambiguous.
Importance
This case protects jurors’ freedom to deliberate without judicial interference and limits courts’ ability to remove “holdout” jurors.
III. Summary of Legal Standards Across the Cases
| Misconduct Type | Leading Case | Rule/Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| External influence (bribes, threats, outside contacts) | Remmer | Presumption of prejudice; requires a hearing. |
| Internal misconduct (drug use, sleepiness) | Tanner | Juror testimony barred by Rule 606(b). |
| Racial bias during deliberations | Pena-Rodriguez | Exception to Rule 606(b); juror testimony admissible. |
| Juror bias due to outside relationships (job application) | Smith v. Phillips | Must prove actual bias at a hearing. |
| Dishonesty on voir dire | McDonough | Two-part test for new trials. |
| Alleged nullification or refusal to deliberate | United States v. Thomas | Juror cannot be removed without clear evidence of misconduct. |
IV. Conclusion
Jury misconduct is a complex area touching on constitutional rights, evidentiary rules, and preservation of the integrity of the verdict. Courts distinguish sharply between external influences (usually reversible) and internal deliberation-related misconduct (usually protected). However, modern developments—especially regarding racial bias—have carved out critical exceptions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments