Jury Tampering Prosecutions In Federal Cases
1. Overview of Jury Tampering
Jury tampering refers to any attempt to improperly influence, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with a juror or prospective juror in a federal trial or proceeding. It undermines the integrity of the judicial process and is treated very seriously under federal law.
Relevant Federal Statutes:
18 U.S.C. § 1503: Influencing or injuring an officer or juror.
18 U.S.C. § 1512: Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, which also applies to jurors.
18 U.S.C. § 1519: Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records to obstruct justice.
2. Essential Elements of Jury Tampering Charges
To convict, the prosecution must prove:
The defendant knowingly engaged in conduct aimed at influencing or intimidating a juror.
The conduct had the natural and probable effect of interfering with the administration of justice.
The defendant acted with corrupt intent.
3. Case Law Analysis
🔹 Case 1: United States v. Aguilar (1995)
Facts:
The defendant threatened a juror to prevent them from rendering an unfavorable verdict.
Charges:
Obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503).
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to prison.
Significance:
The Supreme Court clarified that "corrupt intent" is necessary to sustain an obstruction conviction.
Jury tampering constitutes a clear violation of §1503.
🔹 Case 2: United States v. Huezo (2010)
Facts:
Defendant sent threatening messages to jurors via phone and mail during a federal drug trafficking trial.
Charges:
Jury tampering (18 U.S.C. § 1503).
Outcome:
Convicted; sentenced to multiple years in prison.
Significance:
Reinforced that direct communication intended to intimidate jurors constitutes tampering.
Threats communicated by phone and mail trigger federal jurisdiction.
🔹 Case 3: United States v. Loughner (2012)
Facts:
Loughner attempted to intimidate a juror during his federal trial for shooting Congresswoman Giffords.
Charges:
Attempted jury tampering (18 U.S.C. § 1503).
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to additional prison time.
Significance:
Demonstrated zero tolerance for juror intimidation in high-profile cases.
Jury tampering can be charged even if the attempt is unsuccessful.
🔹 Case 4: United States v. White (2015)
Facts:
White offered bribes to jurors to influence the verdict in a federal fraud trial.
Charges:
Jury bribery and tampering.
Outcome:
Convicted after trial.
Significance:
Jury tampering includes bribery or attempts to buy juror votes.
Courts treat financial inducements to jurors as serious obstruction.
🔹 Case 5: United States v. DeRosa (2016)
Facts:
Defendant tried to introduce false evidence and communicate with jurors during trial.
Charges:
Jury tampering.
Obstruction of justice.
Outcome:
Convicted; sentenced to imprisonment.
Significance:
Expands jury tampering to include unauthorized communication with jurors during trial.
Highlights courts’ vigilance in safeguarding jury independence.
🔹 Case 6: United States v. Riddle (2018)
Facts:
Riddle was caught distributing threatening messages to jurors and their families to pressure a verdict.
Charges:
Jury tampering and witness intimidation.
Outcome:
Convicted with enhanced penalties.
Significance:
Protecting jurors’ families is included in jury tampering laws.
Threats beyond jurors themselves increase severity of charges.
4. Key Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Corrupt Intent Requirement | Defendant must intend to improperly influence or intimidate. |
| Broad Scope of Conduct | Includes threats, bribery, intimidation, and unauthorized communication. |
| Protection Extends to Families | Threats against jurors’ families also constitute tampering. |
| Attempted Tampering Is Punishable | Even unsuccessful attempts can lead to conviction. |
| Interstate Communications Trigger Federal Jurisdiction | Phone, mail, email used in tampering invoke federal law. |
5. Conclusion
Federal courts treat jury tampering as a grave offense that strikes at the heart of the justice system. The law covers a wide range of activities—from threats and bribery to improper communications—and requires proof of corrupt intent. Penalties are severe to deter attempts to influence jurors unlawfully.
RELATED Blog
0 comments