Let's review how juror misconduct can provide grounds for an appeal of your federal conviction. The right to a fair trial is one of the cornerstones of the United States justice system.
At the core of this principle is the expectation that jurors, ordinary citizens like you tasked with deciding the outcome of a case, remain impartial and base their verdict solely on evidence presented in court.
In our federal criminal justice system, a fair trial depends mainly on an impartial jury. If the jury's impartiality is compromised through inappropriate communications or other types of juror misconduct, the resulting bias might result in an unfair conviction for the defendant.
As federal criminal defendants, you are entitled to due process. An essential component of due process is that you are given a trial before an impartial jury, a right that is firmly upheld.
The United States Supreme Court has held that any private communication, contact, or tampering, directly or indirectly, with a juror during a trial about the matter pending before the jury compromises its impartiality.
Unfortunately, the proliferation of instant information and easy access to social media has made juror misconduct more common. Federal judges often admonish jurors not to use social media or the internet to research, learn, or discuss anything about the case.
This does not always stop jurors from using or accessing social media during a trial, which can be the basis for demanding a "Remmer hearing" and a possible post-conviction appeal.
Jury misconduct is defined as any conduct that conflicts with the judge's instructions on how jurors should perform their duties, such as speaking to people about the case who are not on the same jury or concealing personal beliefs that could influence impartial deliberations.
Jurors do not always adhere to the high standards required of them. When they fail to do so, it can constitute juror misconduct, which can significantly and unfairly influence the outcome of a case. If this occurs in your trial, you may have adequate grounds to appeal your conviction.
What Is Juror Misconduct?
Juror misconduct refers to any inappropriate or unlawful behavior by a juror that compromises the fairness of a trial. Jurors are expected to:
- Follow the judge's instructions.
- Avoid exposure to outside information.
- Refrain from allowing personal biases to influence their decision-making process.
Juror misconduct matters because it erodes the impartiality of the jury, the key safeguard for defendants. A federal criminal verdict is not based on guesswork or personal opinion; it's the result of careful deliberation over legal evidence.
When jurors violate the duties described, their actions can undermine the integrity of the judicial process. For the defendant, such misconduct may result in an unfair conviction or sentence.
Remmer v. United States
The landmark case of Remmer v. United States (1954) established the legal framework for determining juror misconduct.
The case arose when Carl A. Remmer, convicted of tax evasion, appealed his conviction because an outside party had attempted to influence a juror during the trial with an implied bribe.
The juror, who later became the foreman, reported the incident to the judge, who conferred with prosecutors. However, the defense didn't discover the breach until after the conviction.
They motioned for a new trial, but the motion was denied. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices ruled that "in a criminal case, any private communication, contact, or tampering, directly or indirectly, with a juror during a trial about the matter pending before the jury is presumptively prejudicial."
This presumption of prejudice requires the government to prove that such contact with the juror did not affect the verdict.
The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower courts, instructing them to hold a hearing to determine whether this incident harmed the defendant and, if so, to order a new trial. This ruling led to the establishment of the "Remmer Hearing" in cases of alleged juror misconduct.
What are Common Types of Juror Misconduct in Federal Trials?
Several common forms of juror misconduct, if discovered, may warrant a federal post-conviction appeal. Let's look at some examples that underscore how such actions can subvert the fairness of a trial.
Failing to Disclose Bias During Jury Selection
During jury selection, prospective jurors are questioned to identify any biases that could affect their impartiality. If a juror fails to disclose relevant information, such as a relationship with a party in the case, preconceived opinions about the defendant, or personal experiences that align with the crime, it can compromise the fairness of the trial. For example, a juror who harbors animosity toward individuals of the defendant's background might consciously or unconsciously push for a guilty verdict despite the evidence.
Conducting Independent Research/Investigation
Jurors are strictly prohibited from seeking outside information about the case. This includes researching legal concepts, the parties involved, or the circumstances of the alleged crime. If a juror begins researching or investigating the case independently, such as searching online for details about the defendant's past, consulting external legal definitions, or even visiting the crime scene, they may introduce unvetted or irrelevant information into deliberations. This behavior can prejudice the jury and violate the defendant's right to a verdict based solely on trial evidence.
Discussing the Case Outside the Courtroom (Including on Social Media)
Jurors are instructed to deliberate only in the jury room and to avoid discussing the case with outsiders or even other jurors before deliberations officially begin. When a juror ignores these instructions, whether by talking to friends, family, or others, whether on social media or in person, they risk introducing opinions or information not presented during the trial. Such discussions can influence how jurors perceive the evidence, leading to biases before deliberations have officially started.
Exposure to External Media Coverage
Jurors are instructed to avoid news coverage about the case while serving on the jury. Nonetheless, some may actively follow media reports, particularly in high-profile cases. News articles or television segments often introduce interpretations or facts not admitted in court. Jurors exposed to these may form opinions based on evidence that's irrelevant, unverified, or prejudicial.
Improper Influence by Outside Parties
Jurors are supposed to stay free from outside influences. However, improper communication with parties outside the courtroom-such as friends, family, trial witnesses, or even other jurors-may occur. For instance, a juror might be pressured by others to vote a certain way or receive unsolicited information meant to sway their decision. This interference undermines the independence of the juror's judgment, which is essential to a fair trial.
How Can Juror Misconduct Justify an Appeal?
If any of these examples of juror misconduct occurred during your federal trial, they could form the basis of a post-conviction appeal. To succeed, your federal appeal must establish that the misconduct was both serious and prejudicial-meaning it likely affected the outcome of the case.
This often requires evidence, such as statements from other jurors, evidence of online activity, or other documentation proving the misconduct.
Proving juror misconduct in an appeal is no small feat, and you must demonstrate not only that misconduct took place but also that it had a substantial impact on the outcome of your trial.
In such cases, your best hope of prevailing in a post-conviction appeal is with the help of a seasoned federal criminal defense attorney, one who understands the nuances of juror misconduct, can uncover strong evidence to back up your claims, and can file paperwork and present arguments effectively to get your conviction overturned.
During a Remmer Hearing, the court thoroughly examines whether any extraneous influence was exerted on the jury and, if so, whether it prejudicially affected the jury's decision.
The procedure typically involves questioning the involved jurors and other relevant parties. The goal is to ascertain the nature and extent of any misconduct or improper influence.
The defense can present evidence of misconduct, while the prosecution may attempt to show that the alleged misconduct did not impact the jury's decision. If the court finds jury misconduct likely influenced the verdict, it must order a new trial.
Contact our federal criminal defense attorneys if you need more information or a case review. Eisner Gorin LLP is based in Los Angeles, California.
Related Content:
If you have one phone call from jail, call us! If you are facing criminal charges,