Summaries of Successful Jury Misconduct
Cases Through September 2004

INTRODUCTION

Jury misconduct claims may be fertile ground for post-conviction relief. Most people are predisposed to believe that criminal convictions are secured by fair, open-minded, unbiased jurors. When jury misconduct evidence is presented, the veneer of jury fairness is tarnished. Jury misconduct claims are double-edged in that they are effective in securing relief, but the relief is frequently accompanied by the hostility that many courts, prosecutors and former jurors give to investigators and attorneys inquiring into potential acts of jury misconduct. Thus, not surprisingly, these claims are often difficult to litigate and are frequently controversial, striking at the heart of the American system of justice.

The United States Supreme Court's opinions reveal a tension in their approach to claims of jury misconduct and the level of prejudice which must be established to obtain relief on this ground. In Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954), the Court held that in criminal cases any ex parte communication with a juror was per se prejudicial. However, more recently in Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982), the Court indicated that an affirmative showing of prejudice was required to win on grounds of jury misconduct. While facially in conflict with one another, the significant factual distinctions between Remmer and Smith reveal that these cases may not actually be in conflict because Remmer involved an outside party attempting to influence a juror whereas Smith involved a juror who unilaterally made contact with the prosecution during his juror service. In sum, despite their facial tension, the more favorable rule of Remmer's presumed prejudice is still technically available to litigants in federal court. It remains to be seen how Smith will be interpreted in future cases of jury misconduct.

Some states have elaborate and prohibitory rules regarding post-verdict contact with jurors, so do your homework before you commence your investigation. Additionally, some jurors are well aware of the fact that their actions were in violation of the defendant's rights and will be very reluctant to admit any wrong-doing. Thus, when researching, formulating and litigating jury misconduct claims, make sure you do two very important things: (1) know your state's law on investigating potential acts of jury misconduct and conducting post-verdict jurors interviews; and, (2) never neglect pursuing possible jury misconduct claims. Your client's life may be saved if your efforts uncover even one significant act of jury misconduct. Even hostile judges can not ignore the significance of what jury misconduct symbolizes within the context of the American jury system. This document contains a topically organized synopsis of all successful civil, criminal and capital jury misconduct cases. The cases are diverse, ranging from intentional acts by jurors who callously disregard their oaths to inadvertent and unintentional actions by jurors, bailiffs and judges who do not understand jury protocol. Jury misconduct has been found as a result of juror disobedience, inappropriate communications with bailiffs, third parties and/or alternate jurors, contact with extraneous reading materials and/or inadmissible evidence, race and ethnic prejudice, improper jury deliberations and official misconduct by bailiffs, judges and other court personnel. In sum, every aspect of the juror's service from the time they received their summons until they were sent home is relevant to developing a potential jury misconduct claim.

The categories of juror misconduct covered in this document are as follows: third party contacts; media influence; court officer influence; intoxication; juror misstatements of law; discussions of parole; dishonesty on voir dire; prejudgment; improper jury discussions; racism and national origin discrimination; jury agreements; juror experimentation and investigation; use of extra-record evidence; use of religious source material; separation of jurors; alternate jurors in jury room; sleeping jurors and incompetent jurors.

If you discover other successful jury misconduct cases that are not contained in this summary, please notify Mark Olive at Meolive@aol.com