Juror Jailed for Internet Research of Defendant

 As reported by the BBC 2 days ago, a British juror was sentenced to 6 months in jail for "blatant" disregard of the judge's instructions by conducting Internet research about the criminal defendant in April 2022.  The result was a retrial in Chester Crown Court.  During deliberations 2 jurors told the court the juror had suggested they do their own research about the defendant.  The judge properly referred the matter to law enforcement instead of summarily punishing the juror for contempt of court.

Jail for Juror Recording Jury Selection on Phone

This is the second incident of juror misconduct in the Young Thug RICO trial in a Georgia court.  In January a juror failed to return when recalled to jury duty.  Instead she went on vacation to the Dominican Republic.  The judge ordered her to write a 30-page paper with 10 sources on the importance of jury duty.

The second incident occurred on 3-17-23.  A Youtube video from 4-3-23 shows the judge examining the juror who allegedly live-streamed jury selection.  She denied hearing all of the judge's 10-minute admonitions about social media comments about jury duty, conducting research, etc.  She stated she took the video but deleted it (no live-streaming) when the person sitting next to her told her she could not record the proceedings.  Court staff took the phone (no search warrant) and found the video in her deleted items.  The judge sentenced her to 3 days in jail.

I have several concerns:

1.  It appears the juror accused of misconduct appears without counsel.

2.  There is no indication she was given a Miranda warning.

3.  The judge, in chastising the juror, used several words uncommon to most people: ad nauseam (Latin?), litany, iteration, brazen, arduous.

4.  She is sentenced to 3 days in jail without an opportunity of allocution, that is, allowed to comment on what punishment if any is appropriate and explain her circumstances.

As I have stated elsewhere, I suggest that a judge, who may be a witness to misconduct, should refer the matter to law enforcement for investigation and possible criminal charges, including criminal contempt.

CARROLL-TRUMP Trial Judge Suggests Jurors Preserve Their Individual Anonymity and More

 At the conclusion of a jury trial a judge will usually thank the jurors for their service and contribution to the administration of justice under our Constitution.  However, following the verdict in the Carroll-v-Trump trial, the presiding judge went farther and strongly suggested that they do not disclose their individual identities, and  ORDERED them not to disclose those of their fellow jurors, "not now and not for a long time."  The judge gave no reasons but his rationale for such an unusual suggestion and order, but it is obvious. This is so even though this was not a criminal trial involving a mob boss or serial killer.  It was a civil trial.  What was the unspoken message?  If you go on the Today Show or Fox News or a podcast and talk about the trial you may enjoy your 15 minutes of fame, but you may end up with something more than you bargained for.   This is very chilling.  

LinkedIn Posts and Selfies by Juror in Trial of Former Florida Candidate for Governor

 Andrew Gillum, former candidate for Florida governor was found not guilty of lying to FBI this week.  The jury was deadlocked on all other counts so a mistrial was declared.  Days prior defense counsel sought a mistrial when it was revealed a juror had taken selfies at the courthouse and posted on LinkedIn.  The court found that the posts revealed nothing about the trial, denied the mistrial motion and cautioned the juror about such conduct.