Misuse of Juror Information | Jury Tampering

Misuse of Juror Information or Jury Tampering occurs when a prosecutor improperly accesses, discloses, or exploits juror information, or engages in conduct intended to influence, manipulate, or intimidate jurors inside or outside the courtroom. This misconduct undermines juror independence, due process, and the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.

Scope:

  • Improper Access or Disclosure: Using restricted juror background information for purposes unrelated to jury selection or trial fairness.

  • Ex Parte Contact: Communicating with jurors outside official proceedings, directly or through intermediaries.

  • Manipulative Conduct: Making prejudicial statements in or outside court with the intent of swaying juror attitudes improperly.

  • Intimidation or Harassment: Threatening or pressuring jurors, or tolerating such conduct by others, to secure favorable verdicts.

  • Post-Verdict Misconduct: Improperly contacting jurors after trial in ways that compromise their privacy or independence.

Examples:

  • Reviewing sealed juror questionnaires to identify or retaliate against unfavorable jurors.

  • Directly or indirectly contacting a juror during deliberations.

  • Leaking juror identities or backgrounds to the media to influence public perception.

  • Making inflammatory arguments intended to prejudice jurors beyond the scope of evidence.

Related Standards:

  • Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954): Establishes that private communications with jurors about a case are presumptively prejudicial.

  • Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (1965): Recognizes that improper contact with jurors violates impartiality guarantees.

  • ABA Model Rule 3.5: Prohibits ex parte communication with jurors and actions intended to disrupt impartiality.

  • ABA Model Rule 3.8: Requires prosecutors to preserve fairness and avoid conduct prejudicial to justice.

Consequences:
Misuse of juror information or jury tampering may result in mistrials, reversal of convictions, sanctions against the prosecutor, bar discipline, contempt proceedings, and long-term reputational harm to prosecutorial offices.