How Judges' Biases Can Impact the Jury

There is an overabundance of scholarship on the crucial, continued importance of rooting out racist prospective jurors and combatting injustice where a judge is patently racist against one of the parties of a case. However, what is the effect where judges exhibit clear biases against certain jurors? Does it impact the verdict in any way?

This scenario arose in Pennsylvania this January, where Allegheny County Common Pleas Court Judge Mark Tranquilli used a both sexist and racist nickname to describe a black female juror who had been selected for a trial. The defendant in the case was found not guilty of possession of drugs with intent to deliver. After being "visibly upset" upon reading the verdict slip, immediately "toss[ing] it back at his minute clerk," the judge called the lawyers into his chambers. At that time, the judge criticized the prosecutor in the case for not adequately screening potential jurors. 

Along with the inappropriate slur, the judge also made sweeping generalizations about the juror's family background, suggesting (based on her appearance) that she probably had family members who were drug dealers. As a result, the judge surmised that the juror must have had a bias towards the drug dealers, which allowed the accused to be acquitted. It is ironic that the judge was so worked up about the effect of this juror's supposed biases when he should have been worried about the effect of his own.

The defense attorney in the case reported him to the Judicial Conduct Board of Pennsylvania. In response, the Allegheny County Bar Association demanded the Judicial Conduct Board conduct a thorough investigation on the matter. In the meantime, the judge has been immediately reassigned to administrative duties. Community leaders justifiably called for the judge's removal, as his behavior shows a "blatant disregard for human decency and integrity in exchange for procuring a conviction at all costs."

Very rarely do we see a judge's biases on display as we do in this case. While a judge's personal beliefs may not impact the way a jury decides, it does shed light onto what may be motivating the judge's other decisions--like towards the defendants in the case. Though judges may have been coached to exercise extra care in not categorizing defendants in a certain way, their side comments about jurors can offer a new lens into what they are really thinking. 

Because the judge is seen as a sort of referee in a jury trial, cases like this could have a sweeping effect on the public's opinion on the (lack of) effectiveness of the justice system. Without any legitimacy, community members will be less motivated to participate by appearing for jury duty--and potentially even worried about what an elected public official might say about them.

What to do? Perhaps other initiatives aimed at eliminating bias in other contexts of the courtroom could have a domino effect on how judges relate to jurors. For example, Judge Tonya Parker's work to implement an implicit bias instruction, which would be read by the judge to the jury, could serve as a lesson and a reminder for not just the jurors, but for the readers themselves.