Bentley 1

Lachante Bentley
Karen Tucker
ENC 2135
26 April 2016
Did I Have A Fair Trial or Not?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed
according to the 6th amendment of the constitution. Living as a citizen here in the United States,
it is our constitutional right for anyone that is accused of a crime is able to have both a fair trial
and the option of an impartial jury. One would think that a fair trial is following all laws and
instructions set in the court system, including given instructions to jury members, the people that
holds the outcome of cases in their hands. But, when the jury is not following those instructions,
is the defendant actually entitled to a fair trial?
What is the purpose of a jury anyways?
Many think they know what a jury is for but do not actually know the true importance of
why a jury serves in the court for. In a nutshell, A jury is a group of laypeople deciding by
consensus the facts in a single legal mater (Jonakait 63). The system believes that jurors are
effective because the jurors that make up a jury are all different people, creating a diverse
environment. Within this diverse environment, its supposed to increase the chances of
understanding everything such as meanings and implications presented in court in different ways.
Additionally, because a jury must come to one decision, they are forced to deliberate and
convince each other of their points of view about the case and the evidence. With those
assumptions, the court system feels as though those strategies are effective when it comes to

Bentley 2
having the best verdict be reached by the jury. As simple as this sounds, 90% of the time, it is not
as sweet and short. In retrospect, verdicts do result from determination of facts and applications
of laws, but often something more complex is required (Jonakait 64).
What does misconduct actually means?
Many people associate misconduct with the definition of unacceptable or improper
behavior, especially by an employee or professional person. in the jury system, misconduct is
actually summed up as (1) juror experiments; (2) unauthorized juror field trips; (3) juror use of
alcohol and/or drugs; (4) improper discussions among jurors, outsiders, judges, lawyers and
witnesses during trial and deliberations; and (6) juror use of electronic media, such as the
Internet (Mackenzie). Now one may be thinking what exactly is so bad about those actions that
a jury/juror may do during trial or why it is considered misconduct. In the court system, juries
are given instructions and when those instructions are violated, they become actions of jury
misconduct.
A.

We just wanted to see what would happen if we acted like the defendant too, whats wrong
with that?
Juror experiments occurs when jurors decide to test out the theories and statements made

in court during trial. When being a juror, curiosity is something that takes over their mind
probably all of the time. For example, in a particular case a defendant was charged with
disorderly conduct and possession of cocaine. The cocaine possession charge arose when two
small bags of cocaine were found under the back seat of the police car used to transport the
defendant (Mackenzie). The reason why the defendant plead not guilty was based on his claim
that he could have not hidden the drugs under the back seat due to the simple fact that he was

Bentley 3
handcuffed. The defendant took the position that he was not able to put the drugs under the seat
due to limited movements with his hands. When a juror requested the judge for a pair of
handcuffs to determine whether or not handcuffs actually limit mobility of a persons hands, the
judge denied the jurors request because that type of experiment is improper. Despite
the judge's instructions, a member of the jury put on the pants that the defendant had been
wearing at the time of his arrest, had another juror bind his hands behind him with a cord, and
thereafter was able to reach into his pockets (Mackenzie). When it was revealed that the jury
convicted the defendant based on the outside experiment conducted, it constituted on the
grounds for a new trial. A new trial was issued because the experiment introduced new evidence
and affected the verdict of the case.
B.

We just wanted to visit the scene to determine some things, whats wrong with that?
Unauthorized juror filed trips occur when a jury/juror member(s) go to an actual crime

scene to come up with their own thoughts, opinions, and interpretations about what may have
happened during the crime, based off of the way the scene is set up. A court case that gives a
great example of an unauthorized juror field trip was when a defendant was charged with
criminally negligent homicide based on his striking and killing a pedestrian while driving his
vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The defendant testified the accident was unavoidable
because a second car pulled out in front of him, causing him to veer off the side of the road and
hit the victim (Mackenzie). After that was known in court, during recess, some jurors decided
to go out and visit the accident scene to figure out and see what the actual width of the road was.
Of course, the defendant was convicted because the information from the jurors were shared
with the rest of the jury members. When it was known that this field trip took place, the
defendant was then granted a new trial because the court reiterated that juror misconduct

Bentley 4
requires granting a new trial if the misconduct "might have" unlawfully influenced a juror or the
verdict rendered (Mackenzie). When going on these field trips knowledge obtained from it
conflicts with the actual evidence that is only permissible in court, which basically violates the
rights of a fair trial.
C.

We were still able to think correctly while high/drunk, whats wrong with that?
Being under the influence of drugs is a form of jury misconduct because it may

incapacitate a juror from performing their duty and/or affect the verdict. Therefore, not insuring a
defendant a fair trial. It is not all cases that being under the influence affects a trial. it must be
based on the bases that the (1) the drugs or alcohol were used at such time or in such quantities
as to make the juror unfit to perform his duties, or (2) the drugs or alcohol were provided by the
party in whose favor the verdict was afterwards rendered (Mackenzie).
D.

We were only having a conversation, what is wrong is with that?

As a juror and talking to jurors, outsiders, judges, lawyers and witnesses during trial and

deliberations is considered misconduct because it is in a way to share opinions about the case
that may affect the outcome of the verdict. Having these conversations makes it possible for the
jurors to obtain information that is outside the scope of a trial. When jurors have discussions with
others outside and inside of the case, it creates an opportunity for different views and insights
that can in turn affect deliberations. These conversations affect jurors when trying to reach a
conclusion because instead of only relying on the information based off the trial and the evidence
presented in the trial only, the deliberations would include information that is beyond the scope
of the evidence and facts presented in the case.
E.

We were only using the internet, whats wrong with that?

Bentley 5
Jurors misuse of the internet is the biggest and most popular form of jury misconduct.
Reasons why misusing the internet is the biggest issue is because of all of the many different
things that are available through the internet. Jurors can use the internet to post about the trial
on social media and conduct research about a case and gain information that was not presented
during the trial (Kiernan).
As a normal person, with any social media, one should feel free to post whatever they
want on their Facebook, Twitter and/or Instagram. Yes, everyone has that right, but as a juror
sitting on trial for a case, posting certain things on their social media such as updates on the case
is forbidden. Additionally, using social media to contact a party or witness outside of court to talk
about the case is also prohibited because it is against the court rules to discuss any details of the
case outside of the trial period and that goes for everyone. Furthermore, when jurors add or
friend the defendants and victims on social media, influences on the verdict may be made by
the jury. For example, In a federal district court case, a juror sent a Facebook "friend request" to
two of the plaintiffs after the jury had rendered its verdict. After the plaintiffs accepted the
request, the juror learned of the plaintiffs "party animal" ways, and after the trial, the juror
contacted the plaintiffs' counsel to bring it to his attention (Kiernan). When jurors see those type
of things on social media their opinions shift and verdicts are truly affected.
Google is a very powerful search engine that millions use 24/7; in class, work, and even
while just using the bathroom. Everyone loves Google because of all of the great information
that one can find by just searching of one word. Most of the time, researching things on Google
are initially innocent but usually, one thing leads to another and before you know it, one will find
themselves reading about something they didnt even research from the beginning. There is an
abundant amount of examples of cases where jurors researched things on the internet about the

Bentley 6
lawyers, media coverage, the witnesses, the defendant, and the victim in a case along with
researching terms that are presented in court as well. The most notorious recent example was a
federal case in Florida, in which the defendants were charged with illegally running an Internet
pharmacy." After seven weeks of trial, during the course of deliberations, the judge discovered
that not one, but eight of the twelve jurors had conducted Internet research about the case during
trial (Morrison 1587). Another example of jurors misusing the internet during a trial was in the
case of Wardlaw v. State. During this case, a man was charged with rape, child sexual abuse and
incest against his seventeen year old daughter. During this case an expert witness testified about
his encountering with the daughter, revealing that she had ODD. With this information, one juror
decided to conduct research of their own about ODD and found out that lying was a trait that is
associated the disorder. With that being known, she shared this information with the other
jurors, after which another juror sent a note to the judge advising him of the incident (Kiernan).
According to Kiernan, when the defense moved for a mistrial, it was denied but on appeal, the
court found that a mistrial shouldve been granted because the jurors research was egregious
misconduct due to the fact that the daughters creditability played a crucial role in the case.
Because of the researching of that non-evidentiary information. It couldve caused an unduly
influence on the jury.
Some may wonder why it is exactly so wrong for a juror to partake in such actions. It is
wrong because it strips a defendant from a fair trial, a fair trial that is guaranteed by the United
States constitution. Using evidence for example, jurors will be told that they should consider
only the evidence presented at trial and no other information. They will be told the evidence
presented at trial and no other information. They will be told that what a judge or an attorney
states is not evidence and that the attorneys opening and closing statements and questions are

Bentley 7
not evidence (Jonakait 199). Certain evidence is prohibited from trial because of the way the
evidence was obtained; such as searching for drugs in a house without a legal warrant. Because
certain things are prohibited from trial before it starts, they are never brought up in the case but
that information is still available to be found on the internet if someone was to look it up. The
development and wide availability of the internet gives everyone speedy, private and ready
access to information, some accurate and potentially pertinent, much neither accurate nor
pertinent. Most importantly, juror accessing and reliance upon internet-based information
breaches the juror oath to give a true verdict according to the evidence (Hunter). Therefore,
when jurors research things outside of what was permissible in court, it affects the verdict and a
defendant maybe convinced instead of being set free because of an act of jury misconduct with
the internet.
Why does jury misconduct happen?
When going into a new atmosphere you know nothing about, curiosity is a feeling that
takes over and that is why jury misconduct happens often. Most jurors enter a place and a
system they know little about, except through cultural sources of the press, television, movies
and now digital media (Artigliere, Barton, Hahm). Some jurors go into the courtroom as little
new born babies that is being introduced into the world for the very first time but knows how to
use the internet as a new born gift. Jury misconduct such as juror experiments, unauthorized
juror field trips, and juror use of alcohol and/or drugs, and improper discussions among jurors,
outsiders, judges, lawyers and witnesses during trial and deliberations are things that happen
because of many factors such as the misunderstanding of jury instructions when they are given.
When it comes to internet and technology jurors have the capability instantaneously to tweet,
blog, text, e-mail, phone, and look up facts and information during breaks, at home, or even in

Bentley 8
the jury room if they are allowed to keep their digital windows to the world (Artigliere, Barton,
Hahm). This problem happens more often because technology has become so powerful. Majority
of the worlds population are extra dependent on their phones and other devices for every single
thing. In this generation alone a student (college students included) will use all internet sources
for a research paper instead of going to the library like our parents had to do during their times.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that during a trial jurors may access the Internet as a
matter of habit (Saltzburg 20). The two main factors that cause jury misconduct is the
misunderstanding of jury instructions and the availability of being able to use the internet so
freely.
What are some ways that jury misconduct can be avoided?
Finding solutions for jury misconduct is very crucial for the court system. Although
juries are not a normative part of a fair trial, they do have considerable value in enhancing public
confidence in the fairness of the criminal process, particularly through the perception of
impartiality. If public support is lost, then the value of jury might be lost with it (Taylor 43). In
order for juries to sill play an important role in a fair trial, somethings must change in regards
to jury misconduct.
The first important thing to deal with when speaking about jury misconduct are the jury
instructions. Going forward to improve jury misconduct would be to improve jury instructions
first because jury instructions are the roots from which jury misconduct grows from. Better,
clearer and more comprehensive jury instructions would help motivate most jurors to avoid
mistaken misconduct (Artigliere, Barton, Hahm). For example, when it comes to social media
and communications for many jurors, updating a Facebook status to reflect daily thoughts and
activities is a matter of habit, and they no longer give it much thought. Others may simply

Bentley 9
determine that updating a Facebook status is a one-sided communication and, therefore, not the
type of communication addressed by the court (Aaronson). New approaches that can be used to
give better jury instructions for all forms of jury misconduct would be to use plain language and
common terms when explaining jury instructions to the jurors so they can understand things
better.
Jury instructions should be explained and described with specific examples in order to
clear up any what-if thoughts. Additionally, allowing jurors to ask questions helps them to be
better informed. By granting jurors this opportunity for jurors to have their questions answered
by the lawyer and/or the judge will definitely help to prevent jurors from looking elsewhere for
answers that causes misconduct such as in juror experiments, unauthorized juror field trips,
improper discussions among jurors, outsiders, judges, lawyers, witnesses during trial and
deliberations and the use of the internet. Furthermore, if courts want jurors to follow
instructions, they have to educate jurors about the importance of those instructions (Hoffmeiser
993). Educating jurors of the importance of following these instructions are essential. Typically,
if one knows the reasoning behind certain things, they feel more comfortable with doing what
they are told.
Solutions to help avoid internet based misconduct are very simple, yet challenging. The
most common solution to dealing with this issue is to limit the access that jurors have to their
phones, devices and to the internet in general. Limiting juror access to electronic
communication devices can take a variety of different forms (Hoffmeier 988). One way to limit
access of using the internet during trial is by having all jury members turn off their phones when
entering the court, during trial, and definitely during deliberations. By doing this, jurors are not
able to communicate with others, thus stopping the issues of communicating with others about

Bentley 10
the case. By turning off their phones, it also doesnt allow jurors to access the internet from their
phones to do any type of research on the case material. The next alternative for limiting the use
of internet and communication is to collect all of the jurors devices all together. This option is
the next alternative because though jurors may turn off thier devices, they are still on their person
and it only takes 30 seconds to cut a device on. In order to stop jurors all together from even
having the option to access their phones would be to just not allow them to have them at all.
Court Dismissed
Lawyers for Peter Liang, the former New York City police officer convicted of
manslaughter in the shooting of an unarmed man in a public-housing project stairwell, asked a
judge on Tuesday to set aside the verdict after they learned, through a newspaper article, that a
juror in the case might have lied during jury selection about his fathers criminal past (Feur). It
was known that he juror lied about telling the court that one of his close relatives had ever been
accused, let alone found guilty, of a crime.
As a citizen, one should take advantage of everything that they are granted. One of those
things being to always have a fair trial, no matter the crime the defendant may have committed.
With jury misconduct being a prominent issue in the court system, the quality of fair trials are
steady decreasing. Juror misconduct is not always obvious. In a few cases, some kind of juror
misconduct is obvious based on the verdict. (Rotlaw). Leaders in powerful positions are needed
to make changes now in order to give the people what they are promised and guaranteed with by
our constitution!

Bentley 11

Works Cited
Aaronson, David E., and Sydney M. Patterson. "Modernizing Jury Instructions in the Age of Social
Media." Criminal Justice 27.4 (2013): 26-35. Print.
Artigliere, Ralph, Jim Barton, and Bill Hahn. "Reining in Juror Misconduct: Practical
Suggestions for Judges and Lawyers." The Florida Bar Journal 84.1 (2010): 8-13. Web. 21 Feb.
2016.
Hunter, Jill. "Jury Deliberations and the Secrecy Rule: The Tail that Wags the Dog?" Sydney
Law Review 35 (2013): 809+. Print.
Jonakait, Randolph N. American Jury System. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press, 2003.
Web.
Kiernan, Michael K., and Samuel E. Cooley. "Juror Misconduct in the Age of Social
Networking[Dagger]." FDCC Quarterly 62.2 (2012): 179-93. Print.
MacKenzie, Robert P., and C. C. Bromberg. "Jury Misconduct: What Happens Behind Closed
Doors." Alabama Law Review 62.3 (2011): 623-43. Print.
Morrison, CM. "Jury 2.0." The Hastings law journal 62.6 (07): 1579; 1579,1632; 1632. Print.
Reuer, Alan. Lawyers for Peter Liang Allege Jury Misconduct in Manslaughter Trial. The New
York Times (2016): Web. 27 Apr 2016.
Saltzburg, Stephen A. "Dealing with Juror Misconduct." Criminal Justice 25.1 (2010): 20-2. Print.

Bentley 12
Taylor, Nick. "Judicial Management of Juror Impropriety." Journal of criminal law (Hertford) 78.1
(02): 43; 43,64; 64. Print.
"What Is Jury Misconduct?" Rottenstein Law Group. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.