Jurors "Breaking Bad"

It seems like the life lessons we learn in Kindergarten, like “follow the rules,” “keep your hands and feet to yourself,” and of course, the Golden Rule, are often the hardest to follow, even for adults. Even when serving as a juror, a time where the upmost respect for the court and our legal system are due, some go “breaking bad”[1] by just not “following the rules.”

Juries are a unique feature of the American legal system. Juries are legal mechanisms implemented to help ensure fair trials for defendants, and particularly criminal defendants. But fair trials are compromised when individual jurors are prejudiced and influenced by outside sources. Jury misconduct is when jurors act in a way that is inconsistent with the oath they have taken and/or contrary to the instructions given to them by a judge.[2] When jurors act in violation of the judge’s instructions, it calls the validity of the verdict in question.

The consequences of juror misconduct can be serious and significant. Jurors are subject to fines and contempt if found guilty of juror misconduct. But that pales in comparison to the repercussions of jury misconduct on the specific case at hand. Jury misconduct can result in judges declaring mistrials and ordering new trials. The time and money spent in trying the case tainted by jury misconduct is squandered and cannot be recovered. In recent news, El Chapo’s three-month trial hangs in the balance as accusations of jury misconduct surface. Click here. And in some instances, jury misconduct can leave a criminal defendant’s life or death in jeopardy. Click here.

Juror misconduct comes in all different flavors. General types of jury misconduct include the following categories:

·         Juror contact with Parties

·         Considering evidence outside of the record

·         Discussing the case with fellow jurors and/or third parties

·         Using the juror’s special knowledge or experience during jury deliberations

Specific instances of misconduct range from trivial infractions to the truly egregious. For example, juror misconduct has been found to include; consulting a dictionary for the definition of a legal term; generating internet searches about the specific case; visiting crime or accident scenes that were not formally offered into evidence; accepting rides from litigant’s relative; sleeping during a death penalty case; and posting information or comments on social media about their case.

The social media phenomena have created a hot-bed of jury misconduct issues. Jurors just can’t help themselves and will post comments about their case on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. But not all posts are equal. For instance, one court found that a juror’s social media posts that “Today was much better than expected and tomorrow looks promising too!” and “Stay tuned for the big announcement on Monday everyone!” were “vague” and “virtually meaningless” therefore, the defendant was not prejudiced.[3] However, another court reversed a death penalty sentence when a juror flagrantly ignored the judge’s warning about commenting on the case on social media and continued to post on Twitter.[4]

A fair trial is a constitutionally protected right. Jury misconduct can jeopardize this constitutional right. Therefore, jury misconduct is a serious issue that poses challenges to the American legal system. This issue should not be taken lightly.

---

[1] Bryan Cranston stated in an interview that: "The term 'breaking bad' is a southern colloquialism and it means when someone who has taken a turn off the path of the straight and narrow, when they've gone wrong. And that could be for that day or for a lifetime.".

[2] David E. Keltner, Jury Misconduct in Texas: Trying the Trier of Fact, 34 Sw L.J. 1131 (1980).

[3] United States v. Fumo, 655 F.3d 288, 305 (3d Cir. 2011).

[4] Dimas-Martinez v. State, 385 S.W.3d 238, 246-47 (Ark. 2011).