22

Let's say Bob is part of the jury during a trial. But Bob is a dishonest/bad juror. What penalties could he face, and what party would be prosecuting him?

The particular scenarios I have in mind are:

  1. Bob happily blabs to the media and exposes all the other jurors and what they've said and who they are. All for some clout, or money.
  2. Bob secretly tells the prosecution/defense that he'll do whatever they ask to manipulate the jury, for a favour.
  3. Bob is a nutcase, and acts in bad faith to manipulate the jury just for the hell of it. For example, "filibustering" and wasting everyone's time, without explicitly stepping into maliciousness.
chausies
  • 3,819
  • 2
  • 19
  • 47
  • 3
    It may make sense to also add 4) Bob knows that the guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but still tries to sway the jury for a not-guilty verdict (whether he tells other jurors what's going on or not) and will hang the jury if that fails, because he doesn't believe the defendant should get in trouble for it. –  Jun 07 '22 at 14:25
  • 17
    @Panzercrisis doing that is Bob's absolute legal right. There is no penalty whatsoever. – David Siegel Jun 07 '22 at 15:20
  • @DavidSiegel To fully believe the guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but to rule exactly the opposite way? That's interesting. I guess if it were illegal, it'd be hard to enforce without a confession or something, but it would be interesting if it were allowed outright. –  Jun 07 '22 at 17:27
  • 23
    @Panzercrisis It is allowed outright, or more exactly, it is forbidden to inquire into any juror's reasons or beliefs, with the sole exception of a bribed juror. Read the Wikipedia article now linked in my edited answer, case 4 for much more detail. One may, for example, believe that guilt is proven but think the law itself is unjust. There are other possible cases. – David Siegel Jun 07 '22 at 17:35
  • 1
    @Panzercrisis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ – Grant Jun 07 '22 at 18:19
  • 1
    @Panzercrisis He might let it slip during deliberations. "I know they proved their case, but I still can't find it in my conscience to vote to convict" – Barmar Jun 08 '22 at 14:15
  • 4
    @Panzercrisis: See jury nullification; this is allowed precisely because it allows the jury to serve justice even if the law happens to be unjust. – Vikki Jun 09 '22 at 02:12
  • 1
    @Vikki That is the effect, but not really the cause. Historically the jury was treated as a black box no one could inquire into in significant part because the trial jury originated as a replacement for "sacral" modes of judgement that called on God. A bit later, the idea of punishing juries for "wrong" verdicts was tried, but rejected because it was too easy to abuse, particularly in political cases. The case of rejecting unjust laws came later, somewhat by accident at first. – David Siegel Jun 09 '22 at 04:34
  • @DavidSiegel: True, it isn't why it originally came about, but it's why it still exists now. – Vikki Jun 09 '22 at 04:35
  • @Vikki In part. But do not underestimate legal inertia. Changing something deeply embedded in the system takes time and effort, and legislators are often reluctant to do it, even when there is little good reason to retain the established rule or procedure. – David Siegel Jun 09 '22 at 04:44
  • 1
    @Vikki As David says. The reasoning given for why #4 should be allowed is Jury nullification, but the actual reason is more likely inertia of all kinds. At this point I think support for qualified immunity doctrine for police officers or civil forfeiture statutes would not be anywhere near large enough to bring them into life, but inertia means that abolishing them is much harder. – DRF Jun 09 '22 at 11:57

1 Answers1

37

This will vary somewhat by jurisdiction. But in most US states:

  1. Bob happily blabs to the media and exposes all the other jurors and what they've said and who they are. All for some clout, or money.

If the authorities can trace these stories back to Bob (and they will put some effort into tracing them) Bob may well be found guilty of criminal contempt of court, fined, and sentenced to a short period in jail. He may also lose the right to be on a jury in future.

  1. Bob secretly tells the prosecution/defense that he'll do whatever they ask to manipulate the jury, for a favour.

If this comes out, Bob could be convicted of soliciting a bribe, and if the scheme went forward, of both accepting a bribe, and jury tampering (or either, depending on the evidence). These are serious crimes, and Bob might well spend several years in prison.

  1. Bob is a nutcase, and acts in bad faith to manipulate the jury just for the hell of it. For example, "filibustering" and wasting everyone's time, without explicitly stepping into maliciousness.

It is not unlawful to be a nutcase. The judge could order Bob removed from the jury if his disruptions were serious enough. If Bob actually violated th explicit instructions issued by the judge, he might be convicted of contempt, as in case 1, but this is rather less likely.

A comment adds the scenario:

  1. Bob knows that the guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but still tries to sway the jury for a not-guilty verdict (whether he tells other jurors what's going on or not) and will hang the jury if that fails, because he doesn't believe the defendant should get in trouble for it

This is an instance of "jury nullification". Bob is within his legal rights, and cannot be punished, nor removed from the jury. Bob can try to convince the other jurors that the law is unjust, or that the possible penalties are too severe for what the accused did, or of some other reason not to convict. If they agree, and acquit the accused, the acquittal stands, however contrary to the letter of the law. If they do not agree, there is a mistrial because of a hung jury. The prosecution may (but need not) retry the accused.

David Siegel
  • 113,558
  • 10
  • 204
  • 404
  • 11
    I think this is all correct. Note, though, that there are only penalties in #1 if Bob is talking to the media during the trial. Once the trial is over, he is generally free to divulge all the details of deliberations. – bdb484 Jun 07 '22 at 05:10
  • 5
    @bdb484 but not to dox the other jurors by mentioning names and other personal data... Which has happened in the past. – jwenting Jun 07 '22 at 05:59
  • 5
    hearing many people complain about not wanting jury duty, you'd think barring someone from future jury duty would encourage such behaviour rather than punish it :) – jwenting Jun 07 '22 at 06:00
  • 4
    @jwenting Agreed (both comments), but note that punishment is not the only reason to impose a penalty. In this case, the goal is to avoid having Bob appear in a jury again. – JBentley Jun 07 '22 at 13:30
  • 6
    @jwenting I believe that's quite mistaken. I don't know of any law that would prohibit a juror from truthfully disclosing the name of a fellow juror, or any other "personal details." Such a law would likely run into First Amendment trouble. – bdb484 Jun 07 '22 at 14:27
  • 3
    England-and-Wales: Lots of potential consequences outlined here; https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/juror-misconduct-offences ranging from fines of up to £5000 to prison sentences of up to two years. – Richard Jun 07 '22 at 15:15
  • 3
    Note that cruel and unusual punishments, and excessive fines, are not lawful in the US even if statute would otherwise prescribe them. In many cases, the question of whether a particular punishment would fit a particular crime would depend upon the defendant's motives, if any, for committing it. Since assessing the defendant's motives would often require assessing witness credibility, and such assessments are supposed to be the job of the jury, who else but the jury could judge whether a defendant showed sufficient mens rea to justify any particular punishment? – supercat Jun 07 '22 at 22:30
  • 4
    @jwenting Barring particular compelling circumstances that justify overriding the presumption of public access to criminal trials (such as specific, identifiable threats to juror safety) the identity of jurors becomes public information after the trial is over in the United States. As one court put it (Court of Appeal of California, in Press-Enterprise v. Suprerior Court), "the process of selection of jurors has presumptively been a public process with exceptions only for good cause shown". – David Schwartz Jun 07 '22 at 23:59
  • It's worth noting that cases like #2 don't just result in punishment for the juror, they can rise to a level of misconduct that can nullify the verdict and cause the case to be retried. – bta Jun 08 '22 at 22:56