Juror Interviews Ordered After Foreperson Misconduct Alleged

 A Florida jury awarded 28 residents $37.4 million against companies responsible for contaminating a water system, through a sewer line.  Midway Water was responsible for 59% of the verdict. It has been alleged that the foreperson did outside research on legal issues and presented his findings during deliberations.  Courts must tread carefully on "entering the deliberation room" through post-verdict inquiries as that room is considered sacred and only accessible in rare circumstances.  Jurors will be individually interviewed.

Jury Foreperson Podcasting Anti-Healthcare Views Results in Mistrial: $40 M Verdict Goes "Poof"

 A New Mexico court has set aside a $40 million verdict in a medical malpractice case due to juror misconduct.  The foreperson hosted a weekly podcast "Becca Mari's Freedom Speak" in which she expressed strong views against the healthcare industry.  This occurred during and after the trial. clearly a violation of the judge's instructions and likely subjects her to a contempt charge.  Cases of this magnitude in the past have resulted in jail time and large fines against the miscreant.  While not disclosing details about the trial, the podcasting jury foreperson's expressed views made her biased and compromised the fairness of the trial.  

You can search several articles online including the Albuquerque Journal.  

Ontario Raises Daily Jury Compensation to $120

 Ontario recently raised its daily jury fee from zero in the first ten days ($40 thereafter) to $120 daily from the beginning of service.  That was the first update in 36 years.  I have lamented here for many years the disrespect shown jurors for doing their civic duty.  After long trials many working for an hourly wage have been forced into bankruptcy.  Canada's lowest is $40 daily. The US federal rate is $50 daily plus travel and other allowances. Go to juryduty101.com for a list by state.  Several are under $10.  Ridiculous!

Rates of Failure to Appear for Jury Duty Increasing

 A recent report indicates that, despite concerted efforts around the country to increase the percentage of summoned jurors reporting for duty, the failure rate is increasing.  I have long lamented in this space the incredibly low rate of compensation paid to jurors, as low as $9 a day in some jurisdictions.  If jury service is a duty of all citizens, it should not be an overwhelming financial burden to serve.  Decades ago many jurors in a months-long federal trial in MN against the tobacco companies chose to file for bankruptcy after the trial.  It had destroyed their finances. In many places child care and convenient transportation is lacking.  Incentives have been tried over the years to no avail.  Here is the link to the National Center for State Courts' Jur-E Bulletin where you can find "2025 Trends in State Courts" by Paula Hannaford-Agor:

https://ncfsc-web.squiz.cloud 

or

NCSC.org

Judge in P Diddy Trial Gives Stern Warning About Violations of Gag Order

 On June 16 the presiding judge in the P Diddy trial dismissed a juror (Juror #6) for inconsistencies ("lack of candor") in the juror's representations about his residency in the federal district.  The defense objected to the dismissal.  That was the subject of the hearing on Friday.

The judge determined that one or more people violated a gag order about Friday's hearing leading to media disclosure.  On June 17 Judge Subramanian gave a strong warning of contempt if further violations of the gag order occur.  The defense had requested the gag order.  There was no evidence disclosed than any juror was involved in the violation.

The trial was further delayed today (June 18) due to illness (vertigo) of a juror.

New Mexico Supreme Court Stayed Defense Motion to Question Juror for Bias Post-Verdict

 The New Mexico Supreme Court has stayed all district court proceedings in a case in which defense counsel, in a post-trial motion, seeks to interview a juror about bias.  The NM AG moved the court for the stay to prevent juror intimidation online and "safeguard the integrity off the judicial process."  Attempts to enter the inner sanctum of the jury deliberation room have generally been denied.  In February a police officer was convicted of voluntary manslaughter with a firearm enhancement.  It is alleged by the AG that the defendant's wife and others had started a social media campaign of harassment against a juror.  The AG alleges the defense is on an "ideological witch hunt" because they don't like the verdict.

See article at yahoo.com

Federal Juror Sentenced to 30 Days in Jail In Guam for Contempt of Court

 On 2-4-25 a former federal juror in Guam was sentenced to 30 days in jail, plus a year of supervised release, fines and restitution, for contempt of court for violating the judge's instructions about discussing the criminal case with others.  He discussed the case with 2 brothers, one of which he knew worked for the defense team and which he had not disclosed to the court.  The brothers asked him to try to be jury foreman and render a not guilty verdict.  A mistrial was declared.

What Are Jurors to Think When DEI Being Eliminated by WH?

 The black head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Naval Chief, a woman, were just fired by the President in the ongoing elimination of DEI, basically discrimination against people based upon their race or gender.   Judges will continue to instruct jurors that race, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation may have no part in their decision making as jurors.  What are they to think when equality is disappearing at the direction of the White House?  What do you think?  Please comment.

Raising Juror Compensation May Increase Participation

 The National Center for State Courts issued a 2022 report on jury compensation in the 50 states, the average being $16 for the first day of jury duty.  Some states are as low as less than $10, as high as $50 in North Dakota.  Many jurisdictions have high rates of failure to appear for jury duty.  It is not surprising that jurors complain that jury duty is a substantial financial drain.  Yet legislators continue to disrespect jurors by not substantially raising daily juror fees.  Many potential jurors do not get paid by their employer while on jury duty.  A few states increased their juror compensation after the NCSC report, however one state I am familiar with pays a mere $9 for the first day.  Frankly ridiculous! 

While serving on a jury is a citizen's duty, it should not render them unable to pay their rent or other household expenses.  During jury selection many jurors asked to be excused for precisely this reason.  Wake up court administrators: go to your state leaders and seek increases in juror pay.

http://www.ncsc-jurystudies.org

"Judging Juries" documentary to be Re-screened

 See my Oct. 30 posting.  A free screening of "Judging Juries" will be repeated on January 23 from 3:00-4:30 pm ET.  It addresses barriers. to jury service that undermine a fair racial cross-section of representation of citizens on juries.  The documentary is 22 minutes and is followed by a panel discussion.  Registration is required at nacdl.org.  (National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers)

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!

Juror Doing Crossword Puzzles and Heated Deliberations Result in Florida Mistrial

 In November a Pensacola, Florida, judge granted a mistrial in a murder case, in part, because a juror (age 80) that was warned not to do crossword puzzles during the trial continued doing so during deliberations.  Also, jurors reported angry interactions, some racially-motivated, and feeling threatened during deliberations. The cross-wording juror denied threatening anyone and said doing the puzzles helped her concentrate.

Boston College Law Review Addresses Jury Experimentation, the Right to Fair Trial and Traditional "Black Box" Nature of Jury Deliberations

 In the most recent issue of the National Center for State Courts Jur-E Bulletin there is a summary of a Boston College Law Review article, "Breaking the Black Box: When Jury Experimentation Becomes Jury Misconduct."  (Vol.65:2863).  Author Jessica Parillo discusses existing case law on juror experimentation starting at page 2880  Fundamentally, jurors may not consider extrinsic evidence during the trial or deliberations (such as Internet research, visits to crime scenes, experimenting with material similar to the physical evidence, etc.).  The NCSC summary states that the author opposes revising the "no impeachment" rules as to jury deliberations and suggests instead preventative measures by the attorneys and judge to insure that misconduct does not occur in the form of experimentation.  Read the article and decide for yourself.  I agree with the author:  eliminating the sanctity of jury deliberations is a very slippery slope.

Check out my prior posts:

10-4-2024    Juror "Googled" floor plan similar to one involved in the case

11-14-22.     Juror conducts experiment with rifle.  Conviction vacated.

11-1-11        Reference to article on jury deliberation reform of the "Black Box"

I recall another case where jurors in deliberations used "Hot Wheels-type" model cars to reconstruction the collision involved in the case.

Two Jurors in Louisiana Criminal Trial Jailed for Contempt

 In August 2024 in St. Mary's Parish, Louisiana, a juror in the sexual abuse trial failed to appear for jury duty for the second day of trial.  After the second day of trial another juror was found to have failed to disclose during jury selection that she was acquainted with the victim's family.  The first juror was sentenced to 5 days in jail after a contempt hearing; the second juror to 15 days in jail.  A mistrial was declared and the case must be re-tried, to the financial and emotional detriment of all involved. 

Webinar Addresses Role Low Juror Compensation Plays in Non-Diverse Juries

 The National Center for State Courts in its webinar showed the film "Judging Juries" (2023) which addressed the widespread absence of racially-diverse juries in criminal cases as a result of (1) prosecutors using preemptory challenges to strike jurors of color based allegedly on non-race-based reasons, such as a bad experience with a police officer or family members incarcerated;  (2) low juror pay creating severe financial hardship for most persons of color serving on a jury, therefore many do not appear in response to the jury summons or ask to be excused.   It also touched on the fact that more than half of the states exclude felons from jury duty unless off probation or on parole.  

Discussion by a panel of court experts concerned surveys of how low juror pay affects diversity;  jurisdictions which have begun paying jurors of low income as much as $100 a day for jury service;  Arizona created a fund to further compensate jurors who serve on lengthy trials.  Some of the programs are funded by private foundations, while others are legislatively-funded but have a trial period after which reauthorization must be sought.

I imagine the NCSC will have the panel discussion available for view on its website, however the film is copyrighted and won't be viewable.

Webinar on Jury Service and Financial Fairness

 On October 30, 2024, 3:00-4:15  pm ET, the National Center for State Courts is hosting a webinar on jury service and financial compensation.  This has long been a concern of mine about which I have frequently posted, most recently on October 3.  It includes a sneak preview of the film JUDGING JURIES which focuses on the financial hardship of jury service to lower-income citizens and the effect on jury diversity.  The film will be followed by a panel of court administrators and community leaders discussing options for increasing juror compensation.

Go to:  https://www.ncsc.org 

and scroll down to the webinars box

Must Jurors Be Truthful During Jury Selection?

 The obvious answer is "of course!"  But this question shows up frequently in word searches in Google.  The entire British and American judicial system has been based for centuries on the paramount importance of TRUTH.  Truth means facts, such as "the semaphore was red when the driver sped through the intersection" or " the freezing point of water is 32 F."  So what are possible consequences of extensive and widely-reported WHOPPERS in the media about political campaigns' outright lies about their opponents?  Having no scientific surveys to support my opinion, I still opine that nothing good can come of this.  One major candidate has publicly said that telling stories that are untrue is acceptable if it serves his purposes.  The message to the average citizen is that lying is acceptable if it serves my purposes.  So if I want to lie when questioned during jury selection because I do not wish to serve because it is a financial burden on my family, then that's an acceptable reason. Really?  It's not!

The past few years a phrase that has become common: "that's my truth."  Rest assured that if you are being questioned during jury selection and you fail to answer truthfully about any of the following, and more, you could be charged with PERJURY, a felony, and be imprisoned, plus fined thousands of dollars if this causes a mistrial:  Do you,

know any of the witnesses who may be called to testify (list is read to the jury panel)

know anything about the facts of this case

know any of the parties or lawyers

have a criminal record at the felony or gross misdemeanor level

know anyone close to you, or have you, been the victim of a crime or sexual assault

have a conviction for DWI (if that is the charge)

have any important events coming up that could be interrupted by service (school exams, medical treatment, a trip planed for a long time, etc.)

have training in medicine (if at issue) or law enforcement training (criminal case)

If you doubt that falsely answering questions during jury selection could lead to serious consequences, here are past posts to take a look at:

2-2-18.    1-22-16.   10-30-15.    5-4-15.   4-28-14.   8-19-13.   8-29-12.   6-8-12.   3-15-12

"Facebooking" Australian Juror Fined $15,000 After Misconduct Leads to Stalking of Victim

 An Australian juror in a rape trial revealed details of the case (including the victim's name and details about deliberations) in which he was sitting to a Facebook Messenger group.  Worse yet, and not anticipated by the miscreant, a member of the Facebook group (5 men) contacted the victim and said that the evidence against the defendant was weak.  The Facebook member accused the victim of making false allegations, that there was no forensic evidence and was wasting taxpayers money. The victim contacted police.  This person ultimately plead guilty to stalking and was fined $8000.  The bad-behaving juror was fined almost $15,000 (U.S. equivalent).  As quoted by ABC News, the judge said the juror "interfered with the administration of justice' and "breached the confidentiality of the jury room."  Pretty mild. How about his misconduct led to the re-victimization of the victim?

Juror in Scottish Trial Fined For Googling Floor Plan of Crime Scene

 The BBC reports that a juror in an Edinburgh rape trial "Googled" a floor plan similar to the crime scene and was found in contempt of court.  She also research the definition of the "not proven" verdict, one of three possible verdicts in criminal trials in Scotland.  The juror violated the court's instructions at the beginning of the trial that the jury was only to consider evidence heard in the courtroom.  The juror, a college lecturer, was fined 400 pounds.