Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Juror misconduct

Juror misconduct encompasses any violation by a juror of the court's instructions, oaths, or legal standards during trial proceedings or deliberations, which may compromise the impartiality and fairness required for a valid jury verdict.^[1] Such violations arise from jurors' failure to adhere to prohibitions against external influences, ensuring that decisions rest solely on presented evidence and law.^[2] Common forms include unauthorized communications with parties, witnesses, or outsiders; independent investigations such as visiting crime scenes or conducting experiments; premature deliberations before final instructions; and introduction of extraneous information like personal biases or external research.^[2] In the digital era, misconduct increasingly involves internet searches, social media interactions, or sharing case details online, which courts classify as extrinsic influences capable of introducing unverified facts.^[3] Intrinsic misconduct, such as misstating law during deliberations or refusing to participate, also erodes the jury's collective reasoning process.^[4] When proven to prejudice the outcome, juror misconduct can result in mistrials, juror dismissal, contempt charges, or post-verdict remedies like new trials upon appeal, as courts assess harm through evidentiary hearings while protecting deliberation secrecy.^[5] Empirical reviews indicate that while not all irregularities warrant reversal—requiring demonstration of actual bias or probability of influence—persistent challenges from juror noncompliance underscore the tension between jury autonomy and trial integrity.^[6] Preventive measures, including reinforced instructions and sequestration in high-profile cases, aim to mitigate risks, though enforcement relies on post-trial affidavits and judicial discretion.^[2]

Definition and Legal Foundations

Core Definition and Scope

Juror misconduct refers to any conduct by a juror that contravenes the court's instructions on the proper execution of jury duties, thereby threatening the integrity of the trial process and the impartiality of the verdict.^[1]^[7] This definition aligns with established legal standards in both federal and state jurisdictions, where jurors swear oaths to decide cases solely on presented evidence and law, avoiding external influences or deviations from prescribed procedures.^[2] Courts assess such violations based on their potential to prejudice the outcome, requiring proof that the misconduct materially affected deliberations or introduced extraneous considerations.^[8] The scope of juror misconduct is expansive, encompassing actions that occur from voir dire through post-verdict stages, though primarily focused on service during trial and deliberations.^[4] Intrinsic forms involve internal jury dynamics, such as premature discussions or biased prejudgments, while extrinsic forms include external interferences like unauthorized research or contacts.^[2] Prohibited behaviors explicitly include conversing about the case with non-jurors, consulting media or internet sources beyond courtroom evidence, conducting independent experiments or visits to relevant sites, and concealing biases during jury selection.^[1]^[4] These infractions apply universally across civil and criminal trials, with remedies ranging from juror removal mid-trial to appeals for mistrial or new proceedings if prejudice is demonstrated.^[9] Determination of misconduct depends on contextual facts, not mere allegations, and requires evidentiary thresholds like affidavits or hearings to avoid invading jury secrecy protected under rules such as Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b).^[8] While not every deviation warrants reversal—harmless errors may be overlooked—the core principle safeguards trial fairness by presuming juror adherence to oaths unless proven otherwise.^[10] This framework derives from common law traditions emphasizing jury independence balanced against accountability for rule-breaking that could contaminate verdicts.^[6]

Historical Development in Common Law

The jury system in English common law originated in the 12th century under King Henry II, evolving from Anglo-Norman inquests where jurors, drawn from local communities, possessed prior knowledge of disputed facts and served primarily as witnesses rather than detached fact-finders; misconduct at this stage was rare and typically involved failures to appear or present accurate information, punishable under general contempt principles.^[11] By the 14th century, as the petit jury transitioned toward impartial triers of fact selected from beyond the locality to mitigate bias from personal involvement, common law recognized specific risks of corruption, culminating in the offence of embracery codified in the statute 38 Edw. III c. 12 (1365), which prohibited corrupting jurors through gifts, promises, or threats to influence verdicts, treating such acts as misdemeanors punishable by fine, imprisonment, or amotion from office.^[12] This marked an early formal acknowledgment of extrinsic misconduct, emphasizing the jury's emerging independence from external pressures to ensure verdicts reflected evidence rather than coercion. The 17th century saw refinement through landmark cases distinguishing punishable "ministerial" misconduct—such as bribery or non-attendance—from protected "judicial" deliberations. In R v. Opie, Dodge and Others (1669), jurors convicted of accepting bribes to acquit were fined and imprisoned, affirming that corruption vitiated the trial process and warranted reversal of verdicts.^[13] This was reinforced in Bushell's Case (1670), where Chief Justice Vaughan quashed fines imposed on jurors for acquitting Quakers William Penn and William Mead contrary to judicial direction, ruling that jurors could not be coerced or punished for their verdict, as it constituted an independent judicial act immune from attachment or attaint; this principle eroded the medieval attaint remedy, a process dating to the 13th century whereby a second jury could convict the original for false findings, leading to their punishment and verdict reversal.^[14] By the 18th and 19th centuries, common law doctrines solidified prohibitions on juror communications and external influences to safeguard secrecy and impartiality, as in Vaise v. Delaval (1785), which barred impeachment of verdicts based on intrinsic deliberations like chance or private bias, limiting inquiries to extrinsic tampering such as bribery or unauthorized evidence.^[13] The Juries Act 1825 (s. 60) effectively abolished remaining attaint elements, shifting focus to preventive measures like juror oaths against partiality and challenges for cause, while embracery and contempt handled persistent issues of tampering; these developments prioritized verdict finality and juror autonomy, influencing Anglo-American jurisprudence by balancing accountability for overt corruption against undue judicial interference in collective judgment.^[13]

Classification of Misconduct

Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Forms

Intrinsic misconduct refers to actions by jurors that contravene their oaths or court instructions but occur internally within the jury's deliberative process, without introducing external information or influences.^[15] Such conduct includes jurors failing to impartially evaluate evidence presented in court, prematurely considering sentencing during the guilt phase, or engaging in nullification by acquitting despite belief in guilt to protest the law.^[16] Courts generally limit post-verdict inquiries into intrinsic misconduct to protect the secrecy of deliberations, requiring defendants to demonstrate actual prejudice rather than presuming it, as mere disagreement with the verdict or internal mental processes does not suffice for impeachment.^[15] For instance, in Nevada, intrinsic misconduct warrants a new trial only in extreme cases where it demonstrably affected the verdict's integrity.^[17] Extrinsic misconduct, by contrast, involves external factors that compromise the jury's impartiality, such as unauthorized communications with third parties, exposure to prejudicial media, or introduction of outside evidence like personal investigations or bribes.^[15] This category encompasses juror-conducted research, such as consulting dictionaries or online sources prohibited by instructions, which injects unadmitted information into deliberations.^[15] Unlike intrinsic forms, extrinsic misconduct often triggers a presumption of prejudice, prompting courts to grant new trials if the influence likely swayed the outcome, as it breaches the jury's isolation from external pressures essential to fair trials.^[16] Federal and state courts distinguish these to balance verdict finality against due process, with extrinsic claims more readily supported by affidavits revealing outside tampering. The distinction influences evidentiary rules: affidavits probing jurors' internal thought processes or deliberations are typically inadmissible for intrinsic claims under rules like Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), which prohibits impeachment based on such testimony except for extrinsic influences or clerical errors.^[15] This framework, rooted in common law traditions, prioritizes juror independence while safeguarding against verifiable external corruptions, as seen in cases where mid-trial publicity or third-party contacts necessitated mistrials.

Bias and Prejudicial Influences

Bias and prejudicial influences in juror misconduct encompass jurors' failure to maintain impartiality due to personal prejudices, preconceived opinions, or extraneous factors that deviate the decision-making process from trial evidence alone.^[18] ^[19] Courts distinguish actual bias, where a juror explicitly demonstrates prejudice—such as admitting an inability to fairly evaluate evidence owing to personal animus toward a party—and implied bias, arising from circumstances inherently suggesting prejudice, like a familial or financial tie to involved parties.^[20] ^[21] Prejudicial influences extend to internal biases (e.g., racial or ideological preconceptions) or external intrusions, such as undisclosed media exposure, judged objectively for their substantial likelihood to corrupt the verdict.^[20] ^[22] To establish misconduct warranting remedies like mistrial or new trial, defendants must prove the bias or influence caused actual prejudice, not mere speculation, often requiring evidence of impact on deliberations under standards like Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), which limits post-verdict juror testimony to external influences while barring inquiry into internal biases.^[8] ^[2] In State v. Maske (2004), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that relief demands demonstration of actual or implied bias prejudicing the moving party, emphasizing objective assessment over subjective juror claims.^[8] Federal precedents similarly require clear prejudice, as in cases where extraneous prejudicial material is deemed inherently likely to sway the jury, per Remmer v. United States (1954) principles, though courts increasingly apply harmless error analysis to avoid overturning verdicts absent proven harm.^[23] ^[24] Notable cases illustrate these dynamics; in the 1989 Georgia death penalty trial of Timothy Tharpe, a juror later averred racial prejudice, stating the defendant as a "nigger" and questioning whether Black people have souls, prompting federal habeas review for implied bias despite the no-impeachment rule's constraints.^[25] Similarly, in a 2020 Ohio ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio granted a new trial after evidence showed a juror's undisclosed racial animus against the Black defendant, meeting the actual bias threshold by proving prejudice in jury composition and deliberations.^[26] Such instances highlight how concealed biases, often rooted in demographic prejudices, undermine verdicts when exposed post-trial through affidavits or external evidence.^[27] Empirical studies, primarily from mock juror experiments, indicate pre-trial biases—such as racial or gender stereotypes—significantly predict verdict tendencies, with one 2022 analysis finding pretrial bias as a stronger guarantor of guilt perceptions than evidence strength in simulated cases.^[28] However, real-world prevalence remains elusive due to evidentiary barriers like Rule 606(b), which presumes internal deliberations immune from impeachment, potentially understating misconduct while over-relying on self-reported or indirect indicators.^[29] Detection challenges persist, as jurors may rationalize biases as evidence-based reasoning, complicating causal attribution to prejudice over legitimate factors.^[30] Legal systems mitigate through voir dire screening, but post-impanelment biases still pose risks, underscoring the tension between juror autonomy and trial integrity.^[31]

Unauthorized Research and External Inputs

Unauthorized research by jurors constitutes a form of extrinsic misconduct wherein panel members independently investigate case-related matters outside the courtroom, introducing unverified or extraneous information into deliberations that was not subject to evidentiary scrutiny or cross-examination.^[32] This violates core jury instructions in common law jurisdictions, which mandate decisions based solely on presented evidence, testimony, and judicial guidance, as external inputs can prejudice outcomes by favoring untested assumptions over adversarial testing.^[33] Courts classify such actions as grounds for challenging verdicts, often requiring proof of actual prejudice, though some jurisdictions presume harm from the introduction of novel facts.^[34] Common manifestations include internet searches for defendant histories, witness credibility, scientific facts, or legal interpretations; physical site visits to alleged crime scenes; home experiments replicating trial evidence; or importing materials like reference books or articles into the jury room.^[5] For instance, in a 2009 California sexual assault case, a juror's independent online and library research into the side effects of the victim's Accutane medication prompted a new trial, as the information influenced deliberations on consent and impairment without defense opportunity to rebut.^[34] Similarly, in People v. Wadle (a Colorado case), a juror's unauthorized internet inquiry into trial-relevant details contaminated the verdict, illustrating how digital access enables rapid dissemination of biased or incomplete data among jurors.^[32] The rise of digital tools has amplified this misconduct, with jurors increasingly turning to social media and search engines despite explicit prohibitions. A study documented at least 90 U.S. verdicts challenged since 1999 due to alleged internet-related juror research, with over half resulting in overturned convictions or new trials, underscoring the empirical frequency and judicial intolerance.^[35] In a 2024 Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court trial, a mistrial ensued after a juror introduced a printed research paper on case issues, highlighting ongoing challenges even with reinforced instructions.^[36] Consequences typically involve contempt proceedings against the juror, potential fines or incarceration for willful violations, and appellate reversal if prejudice is shown, as external inputs disrupt the constitutional right to an impartial jury by injecting uncontrolled variables into fact-finding.^[37]^[5]

Improper Communications and Deliberations

Improper communications by jurors constitute a form of extrinsic misconduct involving any exchange of information about the trial with individuals outside the jury, including parties, witnesses, attorneys, or the public, which contravenes court instructions designed to preserve impartiality. These prohibitions extend to verbal discussions, written correspondence, telephone calls, and digital interactions, with social media platforms posing particular risks due to their public nature and potential for rapid dissemination. Jurors are explicitly warned against such contacts from the outset of service, as they risk introducing unverified external opinions or pressures that could sway deliberations.^[2]^[19] Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) addresses evidentiary inquiries into such misconduct by allowing jurors to testify post-verdict about extraneous prejudicial information improperly introduced to the jury or outside influences exerted on jurors, while barring testimony on internal deliberation influences. This distinction enables courts to probe communications that breach the jury's isolation without undermining the secrecy of deliberations. Violations often lead to investigations, with judges empowered to dismiss offending jurors mid-trial or, in severe cases, declare mistrials to avert prejudice. For instance, in a Michigan case, a juror received a $250 fine and was ordered to compose an essay on the Sixth Amendment after posting a Facebook comment about the trial prior to the verdict's announcement.^[38]^[39] Improper deliberations arise when communications or related actions disrupt the required unified, evidence-based process confined to the jury room after instructions are complete. This includes jurors relaying external feedback obtained illicitly into group discussions, conducting subgroup conversations excluding all members, or permitting real-time outside inputs via devices during sequestration. Such deviations can manifest as accelerated or fragmented decision-making influenced by unauthorized perspectives, potentially invalidating verdicts if prejudice is shown. Courts evaluate these under standards requiring demonstration of actual impact on the outcome, as mere irregularity does not suffice for reversal.^[7]^[9] High-profile instances highlight the challenges, particularly with technology; reports from the early 2010s documented jurors tweeting trial observations or seeking online advice, prompting appellate scrutiny in multiple jurisdictions and underscoring the need for reinforced admonitions against digital engagement. In federal appeals, successful challenges to convictions have hinged on evidence that improper communications demonstrably altered juror perceptions, though harmless error doctrines often preserve verdicts absent clear causation.^[40]^[4]

Physical or Behavioral Infractions

Physical or behavioral infractions in juror misconduct encompass actions or conditions that physically impair a juror's capacity to engage in proceedings or exhibit disruptive conduct undermining the deliberative process, such as sleeping during trial testimony or appearing intoxicated while serving. These infractions differ from cognitive biases or external influences by directly involving observable physical states or overt behaviors that compromise attentiveness and impartial evaluation of evidence. Courts assess such incidents based on their demonstrable impact on the juror's performance, often requiring evidence of substantial impairment rather than mere momentary lapses.^[2]^[41] Sleeping jurors represent a prevalent physical infraction, where jurors fail to remain awake and responsive during critical phases like witness examinations or jury instructions, potentially missing key evidence and violating the oath to diligently consider all presented material. Judicial responses typically involve immediate inquiry upon notification, with replacement by an alternate if the sleep indicates an inability to participate fully, as affirmed in a 2022 Colorado Supreme Court ruling analyzing sleeping as a form of misconduct warranting dismissal without automatically invalidating the verdict. In a 2025 Minnesota Supreme Court decision, falling asleep was distinguished from intentional misconduct but still justified removal to preserve trial integrity, emphasizing empirical observation over presumption of prejudice. Persistent or unaddressed sleeping has prompted mistrial motions in cases like those documented in UIC Law Review analyses, where appellate courts weigh the duration and context of slumber against harmless error doctrines.^[2]^[42]^[43]^[41] Intoxication constitutes a behavioral infraction when jurors consume alcohol or drugs during service, leading to impaired judgment or visible disorientation that affects deliberations. Legal standards require proof that intoxication occurred amid jury duties and demonstrably influenced verdict formation, as outlined in North Carolina judicial guidelines, where mere off-duty consumption insufficiently triggers reversal absent evidence of on-duty effects. Appellate reviews, such as those in University of Alabama Law Review examinations, note that post-verdict revelations of substance use during deliberations can support new trials if corroborated by affidavits showing clouded cognition, though courts prioritize tangible prejudice over speculation. Disruptive physical behaviors, including altercations or outbursts in the jury room, are rarer but treated as contemptuous if they coerce fellow jurors or halt proceedings, potentially leading to individual sanctions under federal and state codes enforcing orderly civic participation.^[2]^[44]^[2]^[44] Remedies for these infractions emphasize containment over broad nullification, with judges empowered to excuse affected jurors mid-trial to minimize disruption, supported by empirical data from state judicial branches indicating low reversal rates when promptly addressed. Failure to timely object to observed infractions, however, often bars post-verdict challenges under waiver principles, as parties must alert courts during occurrences to allow curative actions like juror substitution. These measures reflect a causal balance: while isolated incidents may not vitiate verdicts if alternates mitigate harm, systemic tolerance risks eroding public confidence in jury reliability, as evidenced by recurring appellate scrutiny in misconduct compilations.^[42]^[2]^[41]

Underlying Causes

Individual Psychological Factors

Individual psychological factors play a significant role in juror misconduct, encompassing cognitive biases, personality traits, and self-regulatory deficits that undermine adherence to deliberation rules. Cognitive biases, including confirmation bias and prejudicial attitudes such as racial prejudice or rape myth acceptance, can motivate jurors to engage in unauthorized external research or improper communications to resolve internal conflicts or affirm preconceptions, thereby introducing extrinsic influences into deliberations. A meta-analysis of 44 studies on interventions in rape and sexual assault trials identified these biases as persistent drivers of distorted verdicts, with small but consistent effect sizes for victim credibility assessments (e.g., odds ratios indicating heightened acquittal risks from myth endorsement). Such biases reflect deeper causal mechanisms where jurors prioritize intuitive judgments over evidentiary constraints, leading to rule violations when official information fails to align with prior beliefs.^[45] Personality traits further contribute, particularly those involving low empathy or psychopathic characteristics, which correlate with disregard for procedural norms and biased processing. In an experimental study of 108 jury-eligible participants simulating an intimate partner rape trial, decreased affective responsiveness—a facet of psychopathic traits—predicted post-deliberation guilty verdicts (odds ratio = 1.23, p < 0.05), suggesting empathy deficits impair impartial evaluation and may extend to rule-breaking behaviors like dominating deliberations or ignoring instructions. Similarly, authoritarian personality traits, characterized by rigid deference to authority or conformity, have been linked to heightened susceptibility to influence outside formal channels, though empirical ties to overt misconduct remain indirect in mock jury contexts. These traits operate via causal pathways of reduced impulse control and heightened dogmatism, increasing the likelihood of infractions such as premature verdict discussions.^[46] Social cognitive mechanisms, including low self-efficacy and unfavorable outcome expectations, exacerbate these risks by diminishing jurors' confidence in rule compliance, prompting compensatory misconduct. A 2015 empirical study of 156 mock jurors using social cognitive theory demonstrated that untrained participants exhibited significantly higher misconduct rates (mean score = 5.58) compared to trained groups (mean = 3.45; t(154) = -4.72, p < .001), with misconduct positively correlating to erroneous acquittals (r = .24, p = .003). This reciprocal interplay of personal agency, behavior, and perceived consequences underscores how individual deficits in metacognitive regulation—rather than mere ignorance—drive actions like consulting media or personal networks, as jurors anticipate better decision outcomes from self-directed inputs. Peer-reviewed simulations consistently affirm that such factors, absent robust vetting, yield verdicts vulnerable to invalidation on appeal.^[47]

External Societal and Technological Pressures

External societal pressures, particularly pretrial publicity through mass media, exert significant influence on juror impartiality by predisposing individuals toward preconceived notions of guilt or innocence prior to evidence presentation. Empirical meta-analyses indicate that negative pretrial publicity correlates with increased conviction rates among mock jurors, with effects amplified in published studies using non-student participants and unrelated publicity content.^[48] Greater exposure to such publicity intensifies bias, as jurors exposed to higher volumes of pretrial information demonstrate skewed interpretations of trial evidence favoring prosecution narratives.^[49] Sensationalized coverage in high-profile cases amplifies these dynamics, fostering public opinion currents that jurors, as societal members, encounter through news outlets and interpersonal discussions, thereby challenging instructions to disregard external influences.^[50] Technological advancements, including ubiquitous internet access and social media platforms, have escalated juror exposure to prohibited external inputs by enabling instantaneous retrieval of case-related information during deliberations. Since 1999, at least 90 verdicts have faced appellate challenges due to internet-facilitated juror misconduct, such as unauthorized online research into defendants, witnesses, or legal precedents.^[35] Surveys reveal that 46% of prospective jurors acknowledge intent to search online for defendant details pre-selection, underscoring the pervasive temptation posed by smartphones and search engines in courtrooms and sequestration settings.^[51] Platforms like Facebook and Twitter have documented instances of jurors friending co-jurors, posting trial commentary, or soliciting external opinions, actions that introduce unverified, potentially prejudicial data and undermine collective deliberation integrity.^[52] These pressures intersect causally, as societal narratives amplified via digital channels compound risks; for instance, viral media stories prompt jurors to cross-reference "facts" online, bypassing evidentiary constraints and inviting biased or incomplete information streams. Legal analyses attribute this to the democratized information environment, where algorithmic feeds prioritize engagement over accuracy, subtly eroding jurors' adherence to judicial admonitions against external consultation.^[53] Despite repeated instructions, the cognitive pull of readily available data—coupled with social validation from online networks—fosters deliberate or inadvertent violations, as evidenced by federal surveys showing sporadic but persistent juror social media engagement during trials.^[54] Such dynamics highlight a structural vulnerability in jury systems reliant on participant insulation from pervasive informational ecosystems.

Preventive Measures

Selection and Vetting Processes

The juror selection process begins with the random summoning of potential jurors from lists such as voter registrations and driver's license records, followed by qualification checks to ensure basic eligibility criteria including U.S. citizenship, minimum age of 18, residency, and absence of disqualifying felony convictions.^[55] This initial screening aims to assemble a pool capable of impartial service, thereby reducing risks of misconduct arising from ineligibility or inherent conflicts. In federal courts, for instance, exemptions or excuses may be granted for hardship, but the core objective remains forming a representative cross-section to minimize systemic biases that could lead to improper deliberations.^[55] Voir dire, the primary vetting mechanism, involves questioning by the judge and attorneys to uncover attitudes, experiences, or prejudices that might impair impartiality, such as strong opinions on the case's subject matter or relationships to parties involved.^[56] Challenges for cause allow unlimited dismissals of biased or unqualified jurors upon demonstration of prejudice, while peremptory challenges permit a limited number of strikes without stated reason, though restricted by precedents like Batson v. Kentucky (1986) prohibiting race-based exclusions.^[56] Empirical research indicates that individual, extended voir dire questioning detects biases more effectively than group or minimal formats, with studies showing it better predicts case judgments and reduces undetected prejudices entering deliberations.^[57]^[58] However, limited judicial control over voir dire can hinder thorough bias detection, as prospective jurors may conceal attitudes in group settings or due to social desirability.^[59] In high-profile trials, supplemental vetting through background checks and social media reviews has emerged to verify self-reported information and identify undisclosed biases or external influences, such as prior activism or criminal histories that could foster misconduct like unauthorized research.^[60]^[61] Federal guidelines endorse criminal background checks for prospective jurors to prevent false statements during qualification and ensure impartiality, particularly where media exposure heightens risks of extrinsic influences.^[62] These measures, while not routine in standard cases due to resource constraints, have proven instrumental in excluding jurors with hidden affiliations, as evidenced in proceedings involving public figures where pre-trial investigations revealed social media posts indicating prejudice.^[60] Despite these processes, empirical studies reveal limitations in preventing all forms of misconduct, particularly implicit biases that jurors or attorneys fail to self-identify or detect, with research showing attorneys often misjudge juror sympathy based on demographics alone.^[63] Tools like the Implicit Association Test have been proposed for screening but remain experimental, as standard voir dire struggles with subconscious prejudices.^[64] Overall, while selection and vetting mitigate risks by excluding overt biases, they do not eliminate intrinsic psychological factors that may surface during deliberations, underscoring the need for complementary instructional controls.^[65]

Instructional and Supervisory Controls

Jury instructions serve as a foundational instructional control, wherein judges provide jurors with explicit directives on permissible conduct, emphasizing the need to base decisions solely on presented evidence and to avoid external influences such as media exposure or independent research.^[66] These instructions typically include prohibitions against discussing the case outside deliberations, consulting non-trial sources, or allowing personal biases to sway judgments, often reinforced through oaths sworn at the trial's outset that bind jurors to impartiality and fidelity to the law.^[67] In federal courts, for instance, model instructions mandate that jurors deliberate openly, reexamine their views without stubborn adherence to preconceptions, and reach unanimous verdicts uninfluenced by extraneous factors.^[68] Supervisory controls complement instructions by enabling active oversight during the trial process, including daily admonitions from the judge reminding jurors of their obligations and monitoring for compliance through bailiff supervision.^[19] Judges may observe juror reactions in the courtroom to detect signs of bias or distraction, intervening if necessary to reinforce instructions or, in extreme cases, declare a mistrial.^[69] Sequestration—isolating jurors from public contact, particularly in high-profile trials—represents a more stringent measure, aimed at shielding deliberations from prejudicial media or external pressures, though it is recommended only rarely due to its logistical burdens and potential to induce juror stress or factionalism.^[70]^[71] Empirical research indicates variable effectiveness of these controls; while oaths and standard instructions foster a sense of duty, they often fail to fully mitigate biases or unauthorized research, as mock juror studies show limited impact from prohibitions alone, particularly against internet-based misconduct without accompanying rationales for compliance.^[72]^[73] Enhanced instructions detailing consequences and reasons for rules have demonstrated modest improvements in adherence compared to traditional directives.^[74] Sequestration's preventive value is debated, with evidence suggesting it may prevent exposure to outside influences but at the cost of juror fatigue, which could indirectly compromise deliberation quality.^[75] Overall, these mechanisms rely on juror self-regulation, underscoring the need for clear, repeated reinforcement to counter psychological tendencies toward extrinsic inputs.^[76]

Consequences and Legal Remedies

Effects on Trial Validity

Juror misconduct undermines the validity of a trial by breaching the requirement of an impartial jury, as guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, potentially introducing extraneous information or biases that affect the deliberative process and verdict. If misconduct involves external contacts or unauthorized research, courts apply a presumption of prejudice, requiring the government to rebut it to uphold the verdict, as established in Remmer v. United States (1954).^[77] This standard recognizes that such influences can causally contaminate the jury's fact-finding, rendering the outcome unreliable unless proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. However, proving prejudice from internal misconduct—such as improper deliberations or juror intoxication—faces a high evidentiary bar under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), which prohibits jurors from testifying about statements or incidents during deliberations to impeach a verdict, except in cases of extraneous prejudicial information or racial bias.^[38] In Tanner v. United States (1987), the Supreme Court upheld this no-impeachment rule, reasoning that allowing juror testimony on internal influences would erode finality and encourage post-verdict challenges, thus preserving verdict stability despite potential flaws.^[78] An exception for racial animus was carved out in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017), where overt evidence of bias against a defendant based on race or ethnicity can invalidate a verdict to protect equal protection principles.^[79] The practical effects include declarations of mistrial during trial if misconduct renders impartiality impossible, as in North Carolina statute G.S. 15A-1063(1), or post-verdict appeals leading to new trials if a reasonable possibility of prejudicial impact exists.^[8]^[33] Empirically, while juror misconduct claims arise in appeals, successful overturns solely on this ground are rare, with appellate courts reversing verdicts in only a fraction of cases due to the stringent prejudice requirement and evidentiary limits.^[80] This rarity underscores the tension between trial finality and validity, where unproven or internal misconduct often leaves verdicts intact despite risks to causal accuracy in jury reasoning.

Disciplinary Actions Against Jurors

In jurisdictions employing jury trials, such as the United States, courts address juror misconduct through contempt proceedings, leveraging inherent authority to preserve judicial integrity and deter violations of oaths and instructions. Federal courts invoke 18 U.S.C. § 401, which empowers judges to impose fines or imprisonment—or both—for conduct obstructing justice, including jurors' unauthorized communications, research, or deliberations.^[81] State courts apply comparable contempt powers or specific statutes, treating severe infractions as criminal offenses to enforce impartiality. Penalties vary by jurisdiction and infraction gravity but typically include fines, short-term incarceration, probation, or conditional discharge. In New York, for example, misconduct by a juror in the first degree—such as revealing deliberation contents or independent investigations—qualifies as a class A misdemeanor, carrying up to one year in jail and fines up to $1,000.^[82] Less egregious acts may yield civil contempt sanctions aimed at coercion, like temporary detention until compliance, though criminal contempt predominates for post-trial accountability. Notable applications demonstrate enforcement rigor. In June 2021, a Burlington County, New Jersey, juror faced criminal contempt charges for online research into trial evidence, causing a mistrial; the court fined him $11,227 to cover associated costs.^[83] In January 2024, Florida juror Kayla De Peña received the maximum 179 days in jail and a $500 fine for direct criminal contempt after misrepresenting her impartiality during voir dire and externally discussing a capital murder resentencing, precipitating a mistrial in State v. Okafor.^[84] Such measures, while infrequent due to detection hurdles, emphasize jurors' fiduciary duty to the process, with courts prioritizing proportionality to harm inflicted on trial outcomes.

Notable Cases and Empirical Insights

Landmark Historical Examples

In 1670, the trial of Quaker preachers William Penn and William Mead for unlawful assembly and related offenses at London's Old Bailey exemplified early judicial intolerance for perceived juror defiance. Despite evidence presented and explicit instructions from Recorder of London Sir Thomas Howell to convict based on the legal definition of the crime, the jury—foreman Edward Bushel among them—acquitted the defendants after two days of sequestration without food or water, citing insufficient proof of guilt. Howell fined each juror 40 marks (equivalent to about £26 then, a substantial sum) and imprisoned them for contempt until payment, interpreting the verdict as willful misconduct in ignoring judicial direction on law application.^[12]^[85] Bushel petitioned for habeas corpus, leading to a hearing before Chief Justice John Vaughan of the Court of Common Pleas in November 1670. Vaughan discharged the fines and imprisonment, ruling that jurors assess facts independently and cannot be punished for verdicts derived from evidence, as coercion undermines the jury's constitutional role in checking judicial or executive power—a principle rooted in Magna Carta traditions. This decision marked a pivotal limit on judicial authority over juries, preventing arbitrary post-verdict sanctions and influencing Anglo-American jurisprudence on juror autonomy, though it blurred lines between nullification and misconduct.^[86] In the United States, Remmer v. United States (1954) established enduring standards for external tampering as juror misconduct. During the 1953 federal trial of Carl Remmer for willful tax evasion—resulting in conviction on four counts with a three-year sentence and $10,000 fine—an anonymous caller informed the jury foreman they could profit from a not guilty verdict; an FBI agent then interviewed the foreman and other jurors without notifying defense counsel or the court. Post-trial disclosure revealed this unreported investigation, which the Supreme Court deemed a "disruptive" private communication presumptively prejudicial to impartiality.^[87] The unanimous Court vacated the conviction, holding that any unauthorized contact or influence bearing on the case requires evidentiary hearing and reversal unless the government bears the "heavy burden" of proving no prejudice affected deliberations or outcome. This presumption addressed risks of subtle bias from even benign-seeming intrusions, shaping federal and state rules under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) precursors, and emphasizing proactive judicial inquiry into reported irregularities to preserve trial integrity.^[87]^[88]

Recent Developments and Patterns

In the 2020s, juror misconduct has exhibited a pronounced pattern of digital infractions, driven by ubiquitous access to smartphones and social media, leading to unauthorized online research, case discussions, and postings that undermine trial impartiality. Empirical surveys of post-trial jurors in federal and state courts indicate that a substantial minority engage in such behaviors, with one study reporting that 38% discussed cases with non-jurors prematurely and others admitting to external communications via platforms like Facebook and Twitter.^[89] This trend persists despite judicial admonitions, as jurors often rationalize actions through curiosity or perceived harmlessness, though courts view them as violations of sequestration rules.^[35] High-profile allegations underscore these patterns; in December 2024, defense attorneys in the New York hush money trial of former President Donald Trump claimed "grave juror misconduct," prompting motions to vacate the verdict, though evidentiary details were not publicly detailed and the claims centered on potential bias influences.^[90] Similarly, in February 2025, the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed juror inattentiveness, ruling that falling asleep during proceedings does not qualify as misconduct absent intent to disregard duties, distinguishing it from deliberate actions like external research.^[43] These cases reflect a broader empirical observation: misconduct detection remains low due to jurors' reluctance to self-report under judicial oversight, with studies estimating underreporting rates as high as 50% for internet-related breaches.^[91] Quantitative patterns from juror surveys reveal non-compliance frequencies exceeding 40% in some cohorts, particularly among younger demographics habituated to real-time information sharing, exacerbating risks in complex trials.^[92] Causes include instructional overload and technological temptation, with causal links to mistrials in documented instances where social media posts revealed premature deliberations.^[51] Judicial adaptations, such as enhanced voir dire on digital habits, have emerged, yet empirical data suggest persistent gaps in enforcement, as pre-trial pledges yield limited behavioral change.^[93]

Key Debates and Perspectives

Juror Nullification as Misconduct or Safeguard

Juror nullification refers to a jury's acquittal of a defendant despite the jury's belief that the defendant violated the law as instructed by the court, often driven by moral disagreement with the statute, its application, or perceived inequities in enforcement.^[94] This practice leverages the jury's general verdict power, which combines findings of fact and law into a single outcome that cannot be easily dissected post-trial.^[95] Legally, nullification is neither explicitly prohibited nor endorsed; the U.S. Supreme Court in Sparf v. United States (1895) affirmed that trial judges must instruct juries to apply the law as given, rejecting any duty to inform jurors of nullification as an option, while acknowledging the jury's de facto ability to disregard instructions without direct remedy.^[95] This stance prioritizes uniform application of law over juror discretion to prevent verdicts swayed by caprice or external sympathies. Courts treat advocacy for nullification during deliberations as potential juror misconduct, particularly if it involves refusal to follow instructions or external influences, as it undermines the trial's integrity and the principle that juries decide facts while judges determine law.^[96] In United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit upheld a district court's inquiry into a juror's suspected nullification efforts during a drug trial, classifying deliberate disregard of evidence as misconduct warranting possible mistrial, though convictions were not automatically reversed absent prejudice.^[96] Similarly, in the 1997 Colorado case involving juror Laura Kriho, she faced contempt charges for expressing nullification sympathies in a minor drug possession trial, illustrating judicial intolerance for jurors who prioritize personal equity over legal duty, even if no conviction resulted.^[97] Such actions risk arbitrary outcomes, as empirical studies on mock juries show that explicit nullification instructions can shift verdicts toward acquittals in cases like drunk driving but increase convictions in others, highlighting inconsistency rather than principled restraint.^[98] Proponents view nullification as a constitutional safeguard against legislative or prosecutorial overreach, rooted in historical precedents where juries checked tyrannical enforcement.^[99] In the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, the jury acquitted on seditious libel charges despite factual guilt under colonial law, effectively nullifying restrictions on press freedom and bolstering First Amendment foundations.^[100] During the 1850s, Northern juries nullified the Fugitive Slave Act in cases like that of Shadrach Minkins (1851), refusing to convict rescuers of escaped slaves and thereby resisting federal mandates perceived as morally repugnant.^[97] Advocates, including organizations like the Fully Informed Jury Association, argue this power embeds a democratic veto in the system, preventing miscarriages where laws conflict with community conscience, as seen in occasional modern acquittals for civil disobedience or victimless crimes.^[101] However, quantifying its frequency remains challenging due to verdict secrecy, with limited empirical data suggesting it occurs sporadically—often in high-profile or conscience-driven trials—rather than systematically, and critics note it can perpetuate biases, such as racially skewed acquittals pre-civil rights era.^[102]^[103] The tension persists because nullification's safeguard role depends on juror virtue, which first-principles analysis reveals as unreliable: while it may avert injustice in isolated tyrannical applications, it erodes rule-of-law causality by introducing unpredictable variables into adjudication, favoring ad hoc equity over precedential stability. Courts thus suppress explicit nullification arguments to mitigate risks of abuse, as evidenced by bans on defense counsel raising it in closing arguments, balancing latent jury power against systemic predictability.^[104] This approach aligns with Sparf's reasoning that encouraging nullification invites "mob law," yet tacitly preserves it as an ultimate check, underscoring its dual nature as both latent protector and latent peril.^[95]

Challenges in Proving and Addressing Bias

Proving juror bias in misconduct claims is inherently difficult due to the protected secrecy of jury deliberations, which precludes direct observation or recording of internal discussions and limits evidence to post-verdict affidavits, third-party observations, or circumstantial indicators.^[105] This confidentiality, intended to encourage candid deliberation and shield jurors from external pressure, creates evidentiary gaps, as memories fade and self-reports from jurors may be inconsistent or motivated by regret rather than contemporaneous records.^[105] Courts thus face challenges in distinguishing genuine bias from permissible interpretive disagreements, requiring demonstration that undisclosed prejudice materially influenced the verdict—a threshold rarely met without admissible proof of dishonesty during voir dire.^[106] Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) imposes a strict barrier by prohibiting jurors from testifying about statements, incidents, or mental processes during deliberations, except for extraneous prejudicial information or improper outside influences.^[38] In Tanner v. United States (483 U.S. 107, 1987), the Supreme Court affirmed this limitation, ruling inadmissible juror accounts of internal misconduct like intoxication, as such testimony inheres in the verdict and undermines jury finality.^[78] Internal expressions of bias, such as racial slurs or prejudicial assumptions aired solely within the jury room, fall under this prohibition, rendering them unverifiable unless tied to external sources.^[107] To circumvent this, claimants must invoke the McDonough standard from McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood (464 U.S. 548, 1984), showing a juror gave false answers to material voir dire questions and that truthful responses would have supported a for-cause challenge—yet even then, proving prejudicial effect demands objective evidence of detriment, often elusive amid the rule's constraints.^[105] Addressing proven bias compounds these issues, as courts exercise caution in granting remedies like new trials to preserve verdict stability and avert juror intimidation through probing inquiries.^[33] Public policy favors swift resolution, leading to denials where allegations lack specificity or fail harmless-error review, which assesses whether the bias substantially swayed the outcome against the trial's cumulative evidence.^[106]^[105] While narrow exceptions exist—such as the 2017 Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado ruling permitting impeachment for credible racial or ethnic bias evidence—broader forms of prejudice remain insulated, reflecting a systemic preference for jury autonomy over exhaustive post-hoc scrutiny.^[108] This framework, though protective of the jury system, can perpetuate unremedied miscarriages where bias evades detection or admissibility.^[107]

References

[1]
“Jury Misconduct” in California – Can a Conviction Be Reversed?
In California, jury misconduct is defined as any conduct that conflicts with the judge's instructions as to how jurors should perform their duties.
[2]
Juror Misconduct - NC PRO
Jun 5, 2025 · Jurors are prohibited from any conduct that would interfere with ensuring a fair and impartial trial, such as having contact with the parties, ...Key Concepts · Juror Misconduct · Improper Contact With Jurors
[3]
Google, Gadgets, and Guilt: Juror Misconduct in the Digital Age
Thaddeus Hoffmeister, Google, Gadgets, and Guilt: Juror Misconduct in the Digital Age, 83 U. Colo. L. Rev. 409 (2012). Available at: https://scholar.law.
[4]
Juror Misconduct | Habeas Assistance and Training
Dishonesty on Voir Dire · Unqualified/Misbehaving/Biased Jurors · Premature Deliberations/Prejudgment · Improper Jury Discussions · Juror Misstatements of Law ...Missing: types | Show results with:types
[5]
Post-Conviction Appeals Due to Juror Misconduct
What is Juror Misconduct? · Unauthorized Investigation · External Communication · Failure to Disclose Information · Influence of External Factors · Improper Use of ...
[6]
Contaminating the Verdict: The Problem of Juror Misconduct
This article describes the myriad ways in which misconduct by jurors can contaminate a trial and verdict and the ability of courts to remedy such misconduct.
[7]
Juror Misconduct Appeals of Your Federal Conviction
Dec 31, 2024 · Jury misconduct is defined as any conduct that conflicts with the judge's instructions on how jurors should perform their duties, such as ...
[8]
[PDF] Chapter 26 Jury Misconduct - Defender Manuals
Under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, every defendant in a criminal action who is entitled to a jury trial is entitled to a ...
[9]
Juror Misconduct in Texas (2023) | Expert Legal Guidance
Apr 9, 2023 · Juror misconduct occurs when a juror engages in conduct that violates the rules or ethical standards of a court, compromising the integrity of a fair trial.Juror Misconduct In Texas |... · Types Of Juror Misconduct · Juror Misconduct And Social...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[10]
How Juror Misconduct Can Affect a Criminal Case - Wilfert Law P.C.
Jun 29, 2019 · On the other hand, if a juror's misconduct fails to influence the jury, the conviction will stand and the motion for a new trial will be denied.<|separator|>
[11]
History of Jury Duty | Western District of Missouri
The jury began in the form of a grand or presentment jury with the role of inquest and was started by Frankish conquerors to discover the King's rights.
[12]
Five punishments past and present for jurors who fall foul of the law
Apr 3, 2018 · Embracery occurred where threats or bribes were used in order to encourage jurors to return a favourable verdict. It was an offence both to try ...
[13]
Before the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: juror punishment in ...
Jan 2, 2018 · This paper argues that assessing the new offences is greatly helped by understanding how juror misconduct has been responded to in the past.
[14]
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bushell%27s+Case+(1670)+Vaughan+135%2C+124+ER+1006
[15]
Meyer v. State :: 2003 :: Supreme Court of Nevada Decisions
[55] It is also intrinsic misconduct as the juror disregarded jury instructions prohibiting independent research. Since the affidavit was admissible to show an ...
[16]
[PDF] Opinion by Judge Murguia - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Mar 3, 2016 · Under. Nevada law, juror misconduct refers to two categories of conduct: (1) intrinsic misconduct, that is, “conduct by jurors contrary to ...
[17]
MICHAEL ALAN LEE v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025) | FindLaw
A jury convicted him on both counts, and he was sentenced to prison. ... intrinsic misconduct will warrant a new trial “only in extreme circumstances ...
[18]
Juror Misconduct - Iron Chris
One juror, or a group of jurors, may be guilty of misconduct. The defendant's case may be damaged if a juror fails to follow court instructions, lies, or is ...How Do Jurors Neglect Their... · They Are Prejudiced Or... · They Were Improperly...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[19]
Understanding Jury Duty and Misconduct in the Legal Arena
Juror misconduct, encompassing any inappropriate or illegal conduct that undermines the jury's function, can include communication with external parties, ...Spotlight On Jury Misconduct... · Cases Of Prejudice Or Bias · Prevention Of Jury...
[20]
[PDF] Lori Quick Jurors are human beings, with biases, prejudices, and
In the context of juror misconduct, courts have defined two distinct types of bias: actual bias and implied bias. A. What is Actual Bias? Actual bias is defined ...
[21]
https://hmichaelsteinberg.com/articles/colorado-criminal-laws-special-topics/colorado-law-and-jury-misconduct/
[22]
[PDF] CRIMINAL PROCEDURE-JUROR MISCONDUCT AND BIAS ...
primitive examples of juror bias and misconduct, the Whitmore court moved away from abstract possibilities and highlighted the potential consequences of ...
[23]
[PDF] Why Courts Should Presume Bias in Cases of Extraneous Juror ...
Gershman, Contaminating the Verdict: The Problem of. Juror Misconduct, 50 S.D. L. Rev. 322, 323–24 (2005), which explains: “Defendants have claimed that jurors ...
[24]
Juror Misconduct: Grounds for New Trial in US Federal Criminal ...
Bias or Prejudice: Jurors must remain impartial. Any preconceived notions or biases that influence a juror's decision-making process can constitute misconduct.Understanding Juror... · Proving Juror Misconduct · Related Practice Areas
[25]
Juror Misconduct - The Marshall Project
Opinion A juror in Mr. Tharpe's case signed an affidavit stating that he was a “nigger,” wondering “if black people even have souls.”.Missing: famous | Show results with:famous
[26]
Racially Biased Juror Leads to New Trial for Hamilton County Man ...
Feb 27, 2020 · To show prejudice based on the composition of the jury, Bates had to prove a juror was “actually biased against him.” To prove bias, Bates must ...
[27]
[PDF] Uncovering Juror Racial Bias - Scholarship@PITT LAW
This Article advances a post-verdict model for analyzing juror racial bias, based on sociological and psychological empirical findings on the nature of racism ...<|separator|>
[28]
investigating the effects of juror bias, evidence anchors and verdict ...
The results suggest that pre-trial bias was a significant predictor of both verdict choice and belief of guilt, whereas evidence anchors were not a significant ...
[29]
[PDF] Untruthful Jurors in the Federal Courts - STU Scholarly Works
Part II of this Article reviews the history of biased jurors. Part III reviews the McDonough approach to juror misconduct as well as its negative effects.<|control11|><|separator|>
[30]
Social cognitive processes explain bias in juror decisions
Oct 20, 2022 · Experimental evidence complements this research. Mock jurors' decisions about guilt, culpability and sentencing are biased against outgroup ...
[31]
A Jury Free from Bias | U.S. Constitution Annotated - Law.Cornell.Edu
Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district.
[32]
[PDF] Contaminating the Verdict: The Problem of Juror Misconduct
... trial? People v. Wadle is a recent example of a jury verdict being tainted by a juror's unauthorized use of the Internet to acquire information relevant to ...
[33]
Juror Misconduct: Balancing the Need for Secret Deliberations with ...
Visiting the scene of an accident or crime, or conducting an experiment and reporting the results to other members of the jury, are common examples of juror ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[34]
[PDF] Juror Experimentation and Investigation
New trial was ordered in sexual assault case as a result of a juror's independent research into the side effects of Accutane medication taken by the victim ...
[35]
[PDF] JUROR MISCONDUCT IN THE DIGITAL AGE
Grow notes: The data show that since 1999, at least 90 verdicts have been the subject of challenges because of alleged Internet-related juror misconduct. More ...
[36]
Juror misconduct leads to mistrials, fines and huge emotional cost ...
Oct 11, 2024 · The ACT Supreme Court case ended in a mistrial after a juror brought a research paper into the jury room. The territory has since ramped up its ...Missing: unauthorized | Show results with:unauthorized
[37]
[PDF] JUROR MISCONDUCT AND THE INTERNET
The potential consequences of juror misconduct are numer- ous and grave; not only for the parties to the case at issue, but for attorneys, judges, and taxpayers ...
[38]
Rule 606. Juror's Competency as a Witness - Law.Cornell.Edu
Thus, the House bill allows a juror to testify about objective matters occurring during the jury's deliberation, such as the misconduct of another juror or the ...Missing: communications | Show results with:communications
[39]
Jurors Gone Wild! - The Rosenfeld Law Firm
A judge in Michigan fined a juror $250 last fall, and ordered her to write an essay on the Sixth Amendment, for posting a comment on her Facebook page—before ...
[40]
Juror Misconduct in the Internet Age | Burke Costanza & Carberry LLP
May 16, 2011 · Jurors are not only required to refrain from internet misconduct themselves, but they are required to report instances of such misconduct on the ...
[41]
[PDF] Convicted by a Sleeping Jury: Harmless Error or a Challenge to the ...
Id. This supports the notion that juror misconduct in the form of a sleeping juror is also dealt with in a variety of different ways.
[42]
[PDF] supreme court - Colorado Judicial Branch
Aug 25, 2022 · Indeed, it appears every case defendant relies on that presents a sleeping-juror issue analyzes it as an instance of juror misconduct. Thus ...
[43]
Supreme Court upholds dismissal of sleeping juror
Aug 5, 2025 · Minnesota Supreme Court held that, while falling asleep is not juror misconduct, a juror can be dismissed for sleeping. A district court ...Missing: consequences | Show results with:consequences
[44]
[PDF] Jury Misconduct | What Happens Behind Closed Doors
However, the case law suggests a verdict could theoretically be reversed based on a juror's use of drugs or alcohol if: (1) the drugs or alcohol were used at ...Missing: infractions | Show results with:infractions<|separator|>
[45]
Justice without bias: A systematic review and meta-analysis of ...
Numerous studies have demonstrated that expert testimony can significantly shape juror perceptions, but its effectiveness is contingent on how the testimony is ...
[46]
Juror characteristics on trial: Investigating how psychopathic traits ...
This study therefore sought to investigate the role of jurors' psychopathology, attitudinal, experiential, and demographic characteristics upon individual ...
[47]
[PDF] A Social Cognitive Approach to Understanding Juror Misconduct ...
Ill-equipped and improperly trained jurors may be more apt to engage in behaviors of misconduct and/or render a verdict of error as a result of these behaviors.
[48]
The impact of pretrial publicity on mock juror and jury verdicts
Jan 27, 2022 · Moderator analyses revealed that negative PTP's effect on juror verdicts was stronger for published studies, student participants, and unrelated ...
[49]
[PDF] The Social Influence of Pretrial Publicity on Juror Biases
Dec 5, 2022 · Ruva (2018) discovered negative defendant pretrial publicity also has the ability to bias jurors' memory of trial evidence, affecting jurors' ...
[50]
The Power of Media Coverage: How it Shapes Jurors' Perceptions ...
May 19, 2023 · Media coverage of trials has a significant impact on jurors' perceptions of evidence and defendants. The field of social psychology has ...<|separator|>
[51]
Strategies for Overcoming Challenges Presented by the Impact of ...
Feb 6, 2025 · ... misconduct. Model Instructions: Updated model jury instructions ... Addressing Social Media's Influence on Jurors. Daily Journal ...
[52]
[PDF] Ensuring an Impartial Jury in the Age of Social Media
Mar 5, 2012 · Supp. 2d 576, 609 n.215 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (stating that juror misconduct on the. Internet has “become a recurring problem”).
[53]
[PDF] Social Media and the Court: Exploring Impacts, Challenges, and ...
May 6, 2024 · Internet misconduct that causes verdicts to be overturned, mistrials to be declared, new trials granted, and jurors to be dismissed results in a ...
[54]
Survey Finds Infrequent Social Media Use by Jurors
Jul 29, 2014 · Jurors access Facebook and personal blogs more often than instant messaging services. Six judges reported that a juror divulged confidential ...Missing: external | Show results with:external
[55]
Juror Selection Process - United States Courts
Judicial Conduct & Disability Anyone can file a complaint alleging a federal judge has committed misconduct or has a disability. ... Judicial Conduct & Disability.Missing: prevent | Show results with:prevent
[56]
How Are Juries Selected in Trials? - Super Lawyers
Jun 30, 2025 · Jury Reselection for Misconduct. A juror may be dismissed because of misconduct, conflicts of interest, or personal hardship. An example of ...
[57]
Is individual or group voir dire more effective at identifying juror bias?
The researchers conclude that individual voir dire leads to greater detection of juror biases.<|separator|>
[58]
[PDF] The Impact of Minimal Versus Extended Voir Dire and Judicial ...
Extended voir dire questions were more predictive of case judgments than minimal ones. Judicial rehabilitation did not reduce the impact of pre-existing ...
[59]
LIMITED VOIR DIRE: Why It Fails to Detect Juror Bias - ProQuest
The failure of voir dire to identify a juror's preexisting prejudices and experiences may introduce bias into the proceeding before trial begins. Other jurors ...
[60]
Jury Selection for Fair Trials - Frasco Investigative Services
May 15, 2025 · Learn how background checks and social media searches improve jury selection—ensure fair, unbiased juries with Frasco Integrated Research.Missing: vetting | Show results with:vetting
[61]
The Crucial Role of Jury Vetting in Modern Legal Proceedings
Aug 24, 2023 · Jury vetting is the thorough process of scrutinizing potential jurors' backgrounds, beliefs, and biases to ascertain their suitability for a given case.
[62]
[PDF] Criminal Background Checks of Prospective Jurors
Jun 2, 2013 · Criminal background checks help ensure impartial juries by uncovering potential biases and preventing false statements about past criminal ...Missing: vetting | Show results with:vetting
[63]
Jury Selection Can Effectively Identify Biased Jurors
Empirical studies show that lawyers have difficulty detecting bias and determining which jurors would be more and less sympathetic to their side, which is ...
[64]
[PDF] (Re)Forming the Jury: Detection and Disinfection of Implicit Juror Bias
The article discusses using the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to address implicit juror bias, either by screening or educating jurors.
[65]
[PDF] Removing Juror Bias by Applying Psychology to Challenges for Cause
In light of this research, we cannot reasonably expect that all jurors who hold biased attitudes relevant to the case at trial will be able to be fair and ...
[66]
Understanding Jury Instructions on Juror Misconduct in Legal ...
Jul 15, 2024 · Jury instructions on juror misconduct serve as a vital tool to guide jurors in maintaining fairness and integrity throughout the trial process.
[67]
[PDF] Is There a Constitutional Right to a Properly Sworn Jury?
Part II will analyze the five reasons that the juror's oath is constitutionally required and why it is functionally important to the jury trial.Missing: effectiveness | Show results with:effectiveness
[68]
7.1 Duty to Deliberate | Model Jury Instructions
Jurors must discuss fully, consider all evidence, and reach a unanimous verdict. They must deliberate, reexamine views, and not be influenced by biases.<|separator|>
[69]
6 Ways To Prevent Jury Bias In Your Trial | Magna Legal Services
Feb 25, 2025 · Jury bias can lead to unfair verdicts based on personal beliefs rather than the facts. Even jurors who seem neutral may have unconscious ...Missing: examples | Show results with:examples
[70]
[PDF] American Bar Association Principles for Juries and Jury Trials
A showing of actual prejudice should not be required. C. Courts should consider the option of trying the case in the original venue but selecting the jury from ...
[71]
Impact of Sequestration on Juries - Office of Justice Programs
Sequestration may undermine justice by unnerving jurors, creating cliques, causing stress, and potentially favoring prosecution. Negative impacts outweigh its ...
[72]
"Preventing Internet-Based Juror Misconduct: Investigating The ...
Mock jurors were given one of three judicial instructions that either prohibited internet-based juror misconduct (IBJM) with reasons and consequences (strong), ...
[73]
Realizing the Potential of Instructions to Disregard - Oxford Academic
Empirical studies paint a grim picture of the effectiveness of instructions to disregard. A meta-analysis of these instructions reveals that not only do they ...
[74]
Which instructions better reduce internet-based juror misconduct?
Prohibition instructions combined with traditional instructions did not prevent internet-based juror misconduct better than traditional instructions alone.
[75]
Is Jury Sequestration Actually Effective?
Rating 4.6 (22) Apr 9, 2020 · Jury sequestration is the isolation of a jury to avoid accidental or deliberate tainting of the jury by exposing them to outside influence or information.
[76]
Reining in Juror Misconduct: Practical Suggestions for Judges and ...
Jan 1, 2010 · Perhaps better, clearer, and more comprehensive jury instructions would help motivate most jurors to avoid mistaken misconduct. Of course ...
[77]
Remmer v. United States | 350 U.S. 377 (1956)
This case is here for the third time. Petitioner was convicted on four counts of wilfully attempting to evade and defeat federal income taxes.
[78]
Tanner v. United States | 483 U.S. 107 (1987)
Tanner v. United States: A jury verdict cannot be impeached based on juror testimony about the intoxication of the jury.
[79]
[PDF] 15-606 Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (03/06/2017) - Supreme Court
Mar 6, 2017 · Even after the trial, evidence of misconduct other than juror testimony can be used to attempt to impeach the verdict. Id., at 127. Balancing.
[80]
[PDF] MISTRIAL IN 140 CHARACTERS OR LESS - Hofstra Law
7 Juror misconduct can include improper contact with third parties; exposure to non-evidentiary materials; conducting experiments to test the evidence; ...
[81]
18 U.S. Code § 401 - Power of court - Law.Cornell.Edu
A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other.Missing: juror misconduct
[82]
Legislation - The New York State Senate
Misconduct by a juror in the first degree is a class A misdemeanor. NYSenate.gov New York State Senate Seal ...
[83]
Juror Fined $11000 for Conducting Outside Research During ...
Jun 29, 2021 · CAMDEN, N.J. – A Burlington County man today was held in criminal contempt and fined $11,227 for conducting outside research while serving ...Missing: imprisonment | Show results with:imprisonment
[84]
Juror who caused mistrial gets contempt charge, jail time
Jan 5, 2024 · Instead, he sentenced De Peña to 179 days in prison, the maximum sentence allowable, and fined her just $500 for contempt of court. A new ...
[85]
[PDF] The Penn/Mead Trial and Bushell's Case
At common law, a grand jury can only return one of two verdicts. It can ... Keble implied that the jury's misconduct was that of "going contrary to the ...
[86]
Bushell's Case and the Juror's Soul - Taylor & Francis Online
In November 1670, Chief Justice John Vaughan established, in Bushell's Case, that jurors could no longer be judicially fined for reaching a conclusion with ...
[87]
Remmer v. United States | 347 U.S. 227 (1954)
The petitioner was convicted by a jury on several counts charging willful evasion of the payment of federal income taxes.
[88]
REMMER v. UNITED STATES, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) | FindLaw
The petitioner was convicted by a jury on several counts charging willful evasion of the payment of federal income taxes. A matter admitted by the Government to ...Missing: misconduct | Show results with:misconduct
[89]
[PDF] More From the #Jury Box: The Latest on Juries and Social Media
ABSTRACT. This Article presents the results of a survey of jurors in federal and state court on their use of social media during their jury service.
[90]
Trump lawyers allege 'grave juror misconduct' in their latest attack ...
Dec 17, 2024 · Trump lawyers allege 'grave juror misconduct' in their latest attack on hush money conviction ... Details of the alleged misconduct were unclear.
[91]
[PDF] JUROR AND JURY USE OF NEW MEDIA - Harvard Kennedy School
Existing research on juror and jury use of new media suggests that jurors are keenly interested in learning about the trial participants (parties, lawyers, ...
[92]
[PDF] The Gen Z Juror - Digital Commons @ Pace
Juror misconduct can range from refusing to deliberate to serving while intoxicated to communication or research outside of the courtroom.Missing: trends | Show results with:trends
[93]
[PDF] Juror Internet Misconduct: A Survey of New Hampshire Superior ...
This Note examines the prevalence of Internet-related juror misconduct in the New Hampshire Superior Court and the efforts of Superior Court judges to detect ...
[94]
jury nullification | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Essentially, with jury nullification, the jury returns a “not guilty” verdict even if jurors believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant broke the law.
[95]
Sparf and Hansen v. United States | 156 U.S. 51 (1895)
It is true, the jury may disregard the instructions of the court, and in some cases there may be no remedy. But it is still the right of the court to instruct ...
[96]
Jury Nullification: The People's Tool Against Bad Laws and Bad ...
May 15, 2022 · ... juror misconduct that could be classified as nullification. See United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, 614 (2d Cir. 1997) ("'[N]ullification ...
[97]
The History and Use of Jury Nullification
Dec 9, 2024 · Kriho was accused of juror misconduct after expressing her belief in jury nullification during deliberations. The case highlighted the ...
[98]
The effect of jury nullification instruction on verdicts and jury ...
The results showed that juries given explicit nullification instructions were more likely to vote guilty in a drunk driving case, but less likely to do so in a ...
[99]
A Historical Look at the Power of Jury Independence | Cato Institute
Jury independence, or nullification, allows jurors to not enforce unjust laws, vote 'not guilty' if the law is unjust, and act as a check on government.Missing: common | Show results with:common
[100]
Jury Nullification - Famous Trials
The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, ...
[101]
Case Files: Jury Nullification Cases : Law and Legal Cases : Library
This collection includes cases about jury nullification, free speech in juror rights education, and other key cases in jury rights history. Examples include ...
[102]
[PDF] jury-nullification.pdf - Cato Institute
their hidden powers runs counter to what little empirical evidence exists. There is another reason for rejecting any preference for sua sponte nul ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[103]
[PDF] Jury Nullification: An Empirical Perspective - Huskie Commons
Jul 1, 2008 · Juries may return verdicts that reflect prejudiced or bigoted community standards and convict when the evidence does not warrant a conviction.Missing: frequency | Show results with:frequency
[104]
Jury Nullification: What It Is and How to Do It Ethically
The U.S. Supreme Court determined in the 1895 case Sparf v. United States that jurors, who have the power to nullify the law in rendering a general verdict ...
[105]
[PDF] Judicial Confusion and Inconsistency in Handling Juror Misconduct
Consider two potential jurors in a rape trial, participating in the voir dire process.' When Juror A is asked her occupation, she says she is a medical ...
[106]
The Challenge of Challenging Juror Misconduct - Christian Small
May 10, 2016 · Other courts apply a probable prejudice standard, allowing a new trial if the moving party might have been prejudiced by the nondisclosure.<|separator|>
[107]
[PDF] Analyzing the Appropriateness of Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b ...
This danger can be avoided by amending Rule 606(b) to admit evidence from jurors regarding objective juror misconduct that results in a faulty verdict. 77 ...
[108]
Can a court grant a new trial based on proof that racial bias affected ...
Can a court grant a new trial based on proof that racial bias affected jury deliberations? SCOTUS says YES. By Khara Coleman. Until about a year ago, had I been ...