Trials are a cornerstone of justice systems, demanding impartiality and adherence to legal principles. Juries, central to this process, are expected to be unbiased evaluators. However, history reveals instances where jurors have compromised these expectations, leading to startling cases of misconduct. Here are ten such instances that have tainted the pursuit of justice.
10. The Empathic Juror
In 2014, Usman Ali and Shakeel Rehman were convicted of sex trafficking and rape in England. The conviction was overturned when it was discovered that juror Deborah Dean had been exchanging letters with the convicts during the trial.
Dean’s letters expressed empathy for the defendants and criticized other jurors. Simultaneously, another juror, James Smith, conducted independent online research and shared his findings with the jury. Dean was jailed for contempt, Smith was fined, and the conviction was expunged, leading to a retrial where Ali and Rehman were again found guilty. [1]
9. The Vigilante Juror
In 2013, Kasim Davey was selected as a juror in the trial of Adam Kephalas, who was charged with rape. Davey posted on Facebook about his desire to “F*ck up a pedophile,” revealing his clear bias.
The post was reported, and Davey was dismissed from the jury. The trial continued with the remaining jurors, and the defendant was found guilty. This case underscores the importance of jurors maintaining impartiality and avoiding public displays of prejudice. [2]
8. The Frustrated Juror
Joseph Beard was a juror in a fraud and money laundering trial in 2012. Frustrated with the trial’s prolonged duration, Beard used Google to find out how long the trial would last. He then shared this information with other jurors.
His actions led to the trial being abandoned after five weeks. Beard was sentenced to two months in jail for contempt of court. This case illustrates the dangers of jurors conducting their own research and the consequences of violating court orders. The defendants were later found guilty at retrial. [3]
7. The Judge and Juror
In 2022, Jason Carr, a juror in a rape trial, defied Judge Michael Leeming’s explicit instructions by conducting internet research. Carr then used this information to influence other jurors during deliberations.
His actions were reported to the judge, resulting in the jury being discharged and the trial collapsing. Carr was sentenced to six months in jail for contempt, highlighting the serious repercussions of jurors disregarding court guidelines and conducting unauthorized investigations. [4]
6. The Ouija Board Deliberation
In 1993, Stephen Young was convicted of a double murder. However, it was revealed that some jurors had used a Ouija board to seek guidance from the victim’s spirit during deliberations.
The spirit allegedly identified Young as the killer, leading the jurors to vote guilty. The conviction was quashed due to the use of the Ouija board, but Young was found guilty at retrial. This bizarre case emphasizes the importance of relying on factual evidence rather than supernatural influences in legal proceedings. [5]
5. Slumber at Trial
In 2007, Arif Majid was sentenced to life without parole for fatally shooting Jerome Thomas. The conviction was challenged when it was discovered that two jurors had been sleeping through the testimony.
Eyewitnesses and video footage confirmed that the jurors were frequently asleep, despite the prosecutor’s attempts to alert the judge. The appellate court overturned Majid’s conviction, citing the jurors’ naps as “flagrant misconduct.” Majid was eventually found guilty at retrial. [6]
4. The Doubting Juror
Salvatore Marino was charged with murder in 1977. During deliberations, juror Tracey Jones conducted an unauthorized experiment to test a defense theory about the shooting angle.
Jones reenacted the crime with a friend and a real gun at the crime scene. She then shared her findings with the other jurors. These revelations led to a mistrial, though Marino was later convicted at retrial. This case illustrates the risks of jurors conducting their own investigations and experiments. [7]
3. The Lists of Justice
Jacob Jennings’s weapon possession conviction was overturned in 2003 after it was revealed that the jury had used a list-based method to reach their verdict. The jury foreperson, Rebecca Burrow, submitted an affidavit detailing the process.
The jury compiled lists of facts supporting guilt and innocence, deciding to vote based on whichever list was longer. Burrow stated that personal opinions were disregarded and that she had initially voted “not guilty.” The court purged the conviction, citing that the verdict was not based on the fair expression of the jurors’ opinions. [8]
2. Drinking and Jurying
In 2007, a retired firefighter’s conviction for stealing souvenirs from Ground Zero was appealed after it was alleged that a juror was intoxicated during deliberations. Juror No. 4 was described as reeking of booze and being scatterbrained.
Although fellow jurors testified to her inebriated state, the verdict was allowed to stand because it couldn’t be proven she was drunk during deliberations. Similarly, in 1987, the Supreme Court declined to grant relief in a case where jurors consumed alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine during a trial. These cases raise serious questions about the impact of substance abuse on jury impartiality. [9]
1. Brawling and Jurying
Wedpens Dorsainvil’s conviction for murder and firearm possession was appealed in 2014 due to coercive measures by the judge and a physical altercation among jurors. The jury sent notes indicating a deadlock and a request to be excused.
Despite this, the judge admonished the jurors and sent them back to deliberate. A brawl broke out, requiring bailiffs to intervene. The court reversed Dorsainvil’s conviction, citing duress and the judge’s failure to declare a mistrial after the violent incident. [10]
These ten cases of juror misconduct highlight the potential for human error and bias to undermine the judicial process. From unauthorized research to substance abuse and even physical altercations, these instances serve as stark reminders of the importance of maintaining the integrity and impartiality of the jury system.
What do you think about these cases? Leave your comment below!
