Scenario According to the Law

A juror is supposed to be discrete about the case, and in most cases, they are not allowed by judges to discuss the matter of the case outside the court. Considering that a jury is supposed to decide whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty from a factual view rather than through interpreting the law, new information outside the courtroom could influence a juror’s decision, prejudicial, which may rend a wrong ruling from the jury. Considering this case, a jury is supposed to make a ruling on the facts provided in the courtroom, going back to use such evidence would be prejudicial, and the judge would declare a mistrial, and get another jury.

Considering that, I am not supposed to discuss with anyone outside the courtroom or deliberation room, and that I am supposed to judge on the facts provided at the court, as hard as it would be, I would make sure that during the deliberation, I stick to the evidence produced. Giving such evidence would influence the decision of the jurors, and some facts from the hearing could be assumed, where all may assume that he is guilty and ignore facts that could state otherwise. To avoid biasing the jury, such information is not supposed to be disclosed. Both sides should be listened to, and from there, a ruling can be made. In doing this, I would ensure that I avoid jury misconduct, which could influence the case verdict. The sixth amendment abides all jurors from searching for evidence from outside court since it protects the constitutional rights of the defendant, who is supposed to have a fair trial. In providing such information about his past, the jury would prejudge based on the past rather than the current case as it is supposed to be.

In a case where a jury is influenced by a bailiff or a statement from an officer of the court, for instance a prosecutor, a court of law can declare a mistrial. In our case, a mistrial could easily result is such information was provided to the jury. This would have many costs on the parties involved, as well as time wastage, and valuable information would be lost. It would then be important that I do not use such information. In state vs. Woodard, a juror overheard a defendant during a recess speaking over the phone talking about a need to prepare an alibi. It was held by the Vermont Supreme Court that a mistrial should have been declared. This was because the information overheard was prejudicial, and would pose unfair judgment of the case.

In a 2009 Hawaii code, chapter 626 on evidence, rule 606 (a) on the competency of a juror as a witness, states that, “A member of the jury may not testify as a witness before that jury in the trial of the case in which the member is sitting as a juror,” (Justia US Law, 2009). In the same rule, part (b), it states that no jury upon inquiry about the verdict or indictment may testify on the effect of anything upon any juror’s mind or emotion as an influence to the juror or jury to concur or not to concur with the verdict or indictment. In addition, a juror’s affidavit or any statement from a juror that indicates an effect this kind maybe allowed or received (Justia US Law, 2009). Such rules are quite abiding to the juror, and in this case, I may not have a chance to use the new evidence outside of trial. However, the federal rule of evidence, 606(a) is similar to this, but states that if a juror is called to the witness stand to testify, the defense or opposing party should be afforded the opportunity to abject out the presence of the jury. However, this rule is considered “… inconsistent with the jurors role as an impartial trier of fact It offers dangers analogous to those discussed in the commentary to Rule 605 supra,” (Justia US Law, 2009). This would mean that if I were to testify, the defendant would be at danger. In addition, in subsection (b) of the same rule on evidence, according to the English common law, a juror’s right to testify had one limitation, which is, “he was barred from giving testimony to impeach his own verdict,” (Justia US Law, 2009). This is to suggest that since my testimony would impeach my belief that the defendant is guilty, I would be barred from testifying. In the same federal rule, freedom of deliberation, stability and finality of verdict and protection of jurors is provided, but still, testimony amounting to misconduct, irregularities, and improper influences external to the process of deliberation is not allowed (Justia US Law, 2009). This serves to prevent outside information from influencing the deliberation process.

A juror is supposed to be impartial about the case. However, considering the current communication advancement, one may find some information about a case from media, and social sites, especially in a case like this, that is criminal and public, hence raising the curiosity of the vicinity. In this case, one is required to ignore the external sources, and concentrate on the evidence provided by the court proceedings. The law requires that jurors should be impartial, but not ignorant of facts gotten elsewhere. In our case, this is to mean that I would still be eligible to sit in the jury, as long as the information does not affect my impartiality.

Information about the past record of a defendant about previous arrests is not admissible in a court of law. The information could only be used for a specific purpose, which an attorney can request a judge to give instructions under which specific purpose to use it. The number of arrests is not recognized since it is possible that a person can be arrested, and released without being found guilty. According to the federal rule of evidence 404(b), “Evidence of other crimes … is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action conformity therewith. It may however be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake…,” (Standler, Ronald, 2004). Since in our case the information I overheard does not prove any of this purposes, it cannot be admissible in the trial, and ignoring it would be more logic. In this case, there is no chance allowing the use of this external evidence, and furthermore, it is not admissible in the trial. The only thing I would do to ensure ethical values and beliefs according to the law prevail, would be to ignore the information during the deliberation, and make a decision based on the evidence presented and debated in court.

References:

Justia US Law. (2009). 2009 Hawaii Code Volume 13 Title 33 – Evidence Chapter 626- Hawaii Rules of Evidence §68 – , Such a Rule is in Consistent with the Juror’s Role as an Impartial Trier of Fact. Retrieved from http://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/2009/volume-13/title-33/chapter-626/hrs-0626-0001-0606-htm/

Standler, R. (2004). Pretrial Publicity Prevents a Fair Trial in the USA. Retrieved from http://www.rbs2.com/