| The United States Constitution and the constitutions of the states guarantee the fundamental right to a trial by jury. The constitutional right to a trial by jury includes a right to an impartial or fair jury. Before a jury is impaneled, the jurors take an oath by which they swear or affirm to try the case in a fair and impartial manner and according to the law and the evidence. This article discusses juror misconduct. Under some circumstances, courts grant a new trial because of juror misconduct.
Voir Dire
It is considered juror misconduct to intentionally conceal material information during voir dire, which is questioning of prospective jurors to determine whether they should be a juror. A juror's non-disclosure during voir dire requires a new trial if the juror failed to answer a material question honestly and a correct answer would have provided a valid basis for challenging the juror for cause, which in effect would have kept the juror off of the jury.
Outside Influences on the Jury
Serious misconduct occurs when a juror injects into the jury's deliberations information that was not introduced into evidence. For example, during deliberations in one case, it was alleged by a juror that another juror had shared with the jury that she had knowledge of a criminal defendant's reputation for drug dealing. Although the trial court in the end determined that no such statement had been made, such a statement if made would constitute juror misconduct.
Serious misconduct also occurs if a juror has improper contact with parties or witnesses in the case. A court concluded that a juror engaged in misconduct by sitting in a bar while a woman revealed damaging information about a criminal defendant. The juror failed to identify herself as a juror, failed to leave, failed to disclosed the information to the court, and revealed the information to the other jurors.
Internal Influences on the Jury
Courts generally caution jurors not to discuss the case among themselves until a verdict has been rendered. Although premature discussions among jurors might prejudice a criminal defendant, intrajury misconduct is generally considered less serious than outside influences on the jury. The court will weigh whether the communication was prejudicial to the criminal defendant's interests in deciding whether to grant a new trial.
Sleeping Jurors
Sleeping during the trial is generally considered juror misconduct. In one case, a federal district court was informed that several jurors had been sleeping during the trial. Outside the presence of the other jurors, the district court questioned a juror, who admitted that he had been sleeping. The district court dismissed the juror.
Alcohol Consumption by Jurors
The consumption of alcohol or drugs by jurors during the trial is generally considered juror misconduct. In one case, criminal defendants claimed that the jury deliberations were disrupted by the intoxication of the jury foreman. Nine jurors told the judge that they believed the foreman had been drinking. The foreman denied drinking during the trial. The judge denied a motion for a mistrial but ordered a three-day recess of the trial. The judge requested the jurors to return perfectly sober and able to deliberate. The defendant's convictions were upheld on the ground that the defendants had failed to show that they were prejudiced by the juror's intoxication.
Copyright 2010 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. |