Jury Nullification Related to Desire for Revenge?

 An article in The NY Times on January 14, 2025, "Revenge Is a Dish Best Served From the White House," quotes from a forthcoming book "The Science of Revenge." lt leads me to believe that to some jurors agreeing to a verdict amount to nullification, revenge for past grievances is the motivating factor.  The author James Kimmel, Jr., states "Grievances are intensely painful and activate the pain network inside the brain...the brain is adverse to pain and seeks a compensating experience of pleasure...hurting the people who hurt us (or their proxies) is highly pleasurable."  These grievances may be real or perceived (what's the difference?). Therefore, for example, in a criminal case, jurors aggrieved by the police or other governmental agency may acquit a defendant despite the evidence in order exact revenge.  Kimmel opines that revenge-seeking can amount to an addiction, "an inability to resist an urge to do something that is harmful to yourself or others," says Kimmel.

"Bursting the Jury Bubble" article by Pittsburgh Lawyer

 In the January 2025 issue of The Pennsylvania Law Quarterly is attorney John P. Gismondi's article, "Bursting the Jury Bubble:The Internet's Threat to Jury Impartiality, and How the Courts Should Respond."  Mr. Gismondi initially addresses the idea of "the jury bubble," that is, that the constitutional right to a fair trial presumes that the jury will not be exposed to information about the case except by evidence introduced and allowed within the court only and subject to the rules of evidence.  Those rules have been created and amended over the centuries to keep the jury from receiving evidence that is prejudicial, unreliable, repetitive, or irrelevant to the case.  In addition, all jurors must be on equal footing, that is, all must have the same evidence.  This does not occur when one or more jurors conducts Internet research of the case facts, legal issues, science involved, or visits the scene of the crime or accident.  

Mr. Gismondi notes the quantum leap in our access to vast amounts of extrajudicial information on the Internet, far greater than we had before via television or newspapers.   Not just volume, but the speed and immediate accessibility (via smartphones) to such information is unprecedented.  (Not to mention the evolution of AI to manufacture false images and information).  

The nature and manner of jurors seeking extrajudicial information is addressed at length, issues which I have raised in this blog for many years thru actual cases often resulting in mistrials.  Judges for over 15 years have had jury instructions suggested for them by their governing appellate courts, including posters to place in jury assembly rooms.  Misconduct continues nevertheless.  So what must judges do?

Here are some of the recommended best practices based on a National Center for State Courts study and surveys of PA trial judges and court administrators:

1.  Jury summons should address immediately the need to avoid extrajudicial information.

2.  Once jurors arrive for duty, immediately begin educating them on the same issue: no Internet research on your phone or computer.

3.  Show the jurors a "welcome video" addressing the trial process, their duties and what is prohibited.

4.  Post signage about the prohibition of Internet research and social media interactions about the case (the jury poster on this blog was first displayed in Washington State)

5.  Ask jurors to recite a pledge not to conduct Internet research and acknowledge that contempt of court may be cited against them for violations.

6.  Encourage jurors to report to the court perceived violations of the judges instructions

The author emphasizes:  repetition, repetition, repetition.  I agree 100%.  Remind them of the prohibitions on Internet and social media discussion at the begging and end of each trial day.  One action some courts have taken is to deprive jurors of their phones during the court day.  I disagree: this simply gives the "anti-government" juror even more incentive to violate the judge's instructions outside of the court day.

These are seemingly overwhelming challenges in the current political environment.  

Good luck, Judges!