IS IT REALISTIC TO EXPECT JUROR'S TO OBEY JUDGES' ADMONITIONS?

 Is it realistic for the court to expect jurors to comply with the instructions about not discussing the case on social media or conduct Internet research?  One can certainly wonder.  It has recently been reported that participants in the January 6 Capitol insurrection are attempting to profit from their notoriety through media deals.  The Justice Dept. could seek "claw back" of any money received by participants for book deals, sale of video footage from the riot, etc., as criminally-convicted defendants cannot profit from their crimes.  (AP News, 8-14-22).  It's not a stretch to assume that in a highly-reported trial a juror would be untruthful in jury selection questioning as they want to be on the jury so as to profit from their service after reaching a verdict.  After the verdict is read and accepted by the judge the juror is released from their oath of confidentiality.  One need only harken back to sensational trials of the past few years to recall jurors appearing live on morning talk shows about their jury service within a few days of the verdict.  If you want to view a worst case scenario from tv, just Google "Monk", season 4, episode 16. 

Possible Mistrial Motion by Defense Concerning Juror Misconduct in Michigan Governor Kidnapping Conspiracy Trial

Defense counsel in the Whitmer kidnapping federal trial has filed an allegation that one of the sitting jurors told coworkers she wanted to serve on the jury, had prejudged the case and wanted a particular result.  The lawyer's filing was made after the second day of trial and was briefly available but since sealed.   The trial judge has indicated that an in-chambers (in camera) questioning of the juror will occur without defendants or attorneys present.  Their request to be present was denied.  I will update this post as matters progress.  However, it is a red flag as the in-chambers questioning could be found by an appellate court to be a crucial stage of the proceedings at which the defendant must be allowed to be present.  Stay tuned.

Observations About In-court Jury Trials and Remote Hearings During Covid

 Once jury trials resumed in 2021 there were many challenges facing the courts.  Some jurors were reluctant or even refused to come to the courthouse for a trial once summoned.  Despite state court mandates on 2 occasions I had jurors show up on the first day of trial and refuse to wear a mask.  During proceedings it is very important to keep a good record, so the court reporter must be able to clearly hear attorneys, witnesses, jurors and the judge.  Attorneys had to be reminded frequently to briefly drop their masks while speaking.  This was simply an inconvenience.  A more serious issue which I faced was a criminal defendant allegedly testing positive for Covid the night before day one of a long-delayed trial.  Whether it was true or not we could not risk infecting court staff, jurors, bailiffs, and attorneys if the defendant was required to appear for trial.  Many trials throughout MN were delayed because of participants testing positive.  

Some trials were conducted in a hybrid manner with some witnesses appear remotely via Zoom, much as you may have observed in the January 6 Congressional hearings.  This raised issues such as:

1.  Is the witness reading from a script?

2.  Are there others off-camera prompting the witness?  During other hearings I had to ask the party on screen to confirm whether anyone else was in the room.  Sometimes there was a family member or friend whispering "Tell the judge..."

3.  During all kinds of remote hearings, echnology issues such as poor bandwidth or equipment caused us to lose the person on Zoom, or we could not hear them or they could not hear us.

4.  As has been the subject of tv ads, people showed up for Zoom hearings inappropriately dressed, eating or drinking, or smoking, or in a noisy room or outside on their deck.  The trappings of the courtroom and its sense of serious business taking place was largely lost.  

All of the above and other issues with remote hearings caused incredible stress on the participants, lawyers, judges and court staff.  Having retired I have no idea if these issues have abated, but I hope so.  Respect for our system of justice is integral to our democracy, which is under serious attack everywhere.