The jury is instructed to only rule on evidence presented in the courtroom. This is made very clear. One, if a jury member knew the defendant and/or had ties to the state, it would have been ferreted out in voir dire. The attorneys get the jury info sheets ahead of time in cases like that and run them through search engines. That ferrets out a lot.
Also, the jurors are stating in front of the other potential jurors that they have no ties. It would look incredibly fishy to the other jurors that this person lied in voir dire, but is now claiming outside knowledge. I doubt they would go along with it. Then you would also have to have this person angling to become the foreperson, and then somehow trying to exert their opinion.
Juries are not this complicated.
The murder trial I observed last month involved a foster parent accused of killing their foster child. The trial lasted three weeks. The jury returned a verdict after 2.5 hours, even though there was a ton of evidence. On its face, it looks like they didn't pay attention or wanted to leave. However, they took copious notes and chose to speak with the attorneys for the state and defense post-verdict. They gave thoughtful, articulate answers describing the deliberation process. This was in a more rural area, with some jurors that people would label as uneducated. They all thought through their opinions while discussing their verdict. Just because one person was emphatic on a point did not mean that they immediately flipped.
While I understand the need to keep juries open, the fact is, most do their job and do it well. Jury tampering and juror misconduct happens much less than people think it does, in my opinion. I'm torn on the issue of releasing names, but I don't think that releasing names really helps "prove" tampering or misconduct.
Has there ever been an instance where the release of juror names has lead to the discovery of tampering or misconduct? Or is this all conjecture?
Interesting discussion.
Trials are held in open court, open to the public. Any reporter attending open court, who is worth their salt, can easily find the names of these jurors. A sequestered jury, makes discovering their names more difficult. The media claims to have known who the jurors were in this case, and when the judge sealed the names, this only prevented the media from going public with those names. The media already knew who they were, and most likely did a little hounding in an effort to get an interview. When the media wants to know something, they are pretty good at finding it out. KC's whereabouts have been sealed, does anyone think its true that only her lawyers and the probation officer know her location, or does the media know, but are unable to tell because the judge said her location will remain unknown?
This being the age of information, does add a new wrinkle to the release of the jurors names. With the internet, and all the information on the internet about each of us, perhaps the laws surrounding juries in this new age need to be looked at a little more closely. Just as the dt in this case used modern technology in the courtroom, modern technology can be used by the criminal element to wreak havoc upon an individuals life via the internet. The predators on the internet are abundant. It is a given that the need for a jury is to reach a verdict of whether or not someone is guilty of a crime. So, jurors are deciding the fate of criminals. Many criminals are now tech savvy. The laws governing our fine country, are lagging way behind in regards to the internet, and the power of the internet. Identity theft, online predators, personal information, video piracy, audio piracy, etc. etc. Some of our laws need to enter the new millenium, at the very least, in regards to new technology.
Obviously, when a case is high profile like this one, and especially when the verdict is as controversial as this one, it makes us think hard about our current laws, and legal system. This case is an exception to the rule on two fronts, one it is high profile (there are not really very many high profile cases) and two the verdict was extremely controversial (most high profile cases end with an expected verdict). Our system is fine, but is and has always been a work in progress. Cases like this one, show where work needs to be done. This case will be referred to many, many times, because of its uniqueness of allowing in, the hair with apparent decomp, the Dr. Vass evidence, and the use of gadgets by the DT in the courtroom, plus the Caylee laws that are being considered around the country.
I think whatever laws we currently have in place in regards to jurors are working just fine, but I do think lawmakers need to consider the affect the internet has on the court system, before, during and after a trial, and keep those things in mind when drafting new laws.
As always, my entire post is my opinion only.
