A New Threat to Your Next Jury Trial: Fake Jurors

 Fake electors have been in the news for almost 2 years, threatening our democracy.  In October during the Darrell Brooks homicide trial a new threat came to light, something possibly occurring for the first time: a fake juror posting on Reddit.  A person (r/Justice4Darrell) claiming to be a juror in the trial posted lengthy comments about the trial and solicited comments from followers.  The fake juror accused the judge of being biased and that Mr. Brooks was not being given a fair trial, constantly being interrupted and silenced (probably because he was representing himself and claimed to be a sovereign nation).  When they were found out and determined to be a fake, the faker apologized for the prank.  

So now we have another potential threat over which the court has no control:  the Wild West of social media.  Perhaps all the court can do is instruct the lawyers that any hint of social media comments by a juror (fake or not) coming to their attention must be immediately brought to the court's attention.

No Juror Misconduct Warranting New Trial in Scott Peterson Murder Case

 On December 20, 2022, a California judge denied the defendant's habeas corpus petition for a new trial, finding that juror 's responses on her juror (Richelle Nice) questionnaire were "the result of combination of good faith misunderstanding of the questions and sloppiness in answering." Peterson was convicted in 2004 and has had multiple petitions for habeas corpus, the vast majority of which have been denied by the appellate court.  An additional habeas corpus petition is expected after this ruling.  Peterson also alleged the juror was biased against him based on statements made in the deliberation room, ie. "pay for killing the 'Little Man," the victim.  The evidentiary hearing took place in March 2022 with arguments thereafter in August.  This case and others mentioned in this blog show us that legalese such as "lawsuit" is often misunderstood by jurors.  Most would not consider a divorce case or seeking. restraining order a lawsuit in my experience.

The Case for Sequestering the Jury During Entire Murder Trial

 In posts on 6-11-12 and 7-18-13 I discussed the high cost of sequestering a jury for an entire trial.  Given the high number of mistrials and reversed verdicts due to juror misconduct in the past 10 years, this issue is worthy of reconsideration.  A few years ago I was invited to participate in a DOJ panel to discuss juror misconduct and the risks to high profile, expensive federal trials.  One conclusion reached was that heightened awareness among the judiciary was necessary. In several high profile cases since that time juror misconduct was alleged and in some resulted in dismissal of a juror:

El Chapo trial

Michigan Governor kidnapping trial

Australian member of parliament rape trial (just posted)

Virginia double murder case 2022 (recent post)

So what are the issues over complete sequestration?

    Jurors would try to avoid serving if separated from family, work and Internet access for weeks or         months.  Some would say anything to avoid serving.

    Extreme cost for 24-hour security, hotels, meals, transportation, and blocking access to Internet and monitoring social media. It would be like living on a desert island with a dozen or more strangers and perhaps only given newspapers redacted of any coverage of the trial to keep up with the news of the day.

    Jurors who serve may suffer anxiety and emotional distress being separated from loved ones

    Weekend release to their homes?  Seems reasonable but defeats the whole purpose.

In conclusion, I do not foresee a case where this would occur, except perhaps the criminal prosecution of former federal officials.

Rape Trial of Australian Parliament Member Mistried After Juror Conducted Research

 On October 27, 2022, the trial of an Australian member of Parliament was abandoned after court staff discovered that a juror had done Internet research about academic studies of sexual assault cases.  This was after 12 days of trial and 5 days of jury deliberation.  The financial and emotional cost to all involved over one juror's lapse in judgment is great.  Witnesses, including the female victim who testified for a week,  must testify again once a new trial occurs, possibly in February.  There is no indication of sanctions against the juror.