Questions about US jury service

[Miss Chicken]

One of the jurors in the Zimmerman case says that she is going to write a book about the case. This wouldn't be allowed in my country but I am interested to finding out how much is allowed in different US states. So I will ask the following questions hoping someone might know the answers -

1)After a trial is over is a juror allowed to talk to the media in all states, or do some states ban it? Can a judge forbid it under certain circumstances?

2) Is a juror allowed to identify other jurors by name?

3) Are jurors allowed to talk about anything that is said in the jury room?

EDITED TO ADD - I read that she has dropped her plans to write the book. but I am still would like answers to the questions, if possible.

 

[JuanBolio]

As far as it was explained to me, once the trial is over and the verdict is read they are free to discuss their experience as they would any other. I, however, am far from a legal expert. I ignore all but the most fundamental laws whenever it suits me.

Edited to add - this probably varies on a state-to-state basis.

 

[MacLeod]

One of the jurors in the Zimmerman case says that she is going to write a book about the case. This wouldn't be allowed in my country but I am interested to finding out how much is allowed in different US states. So I will ask the following questions hoping someone might know the answers -

1)After a trial is over is a juror allowed to talk to the media in all states, or do some states ban it? Can a judge forbid it under certain circumstances?

2) Is a juror allowed to identify other jurors by name?

3) Are jurors allowed to talk about anything that is said in the jury room?

EDITED TO ADD - I read that she has dropped her plans to write the book. but I am still would like answers to the questions, if possible.

Hardly a suprise but it sounds like your country is like mine. Jurors aren't allowed to discuss what occured esp as it pertains to Jury deliberations.

 

[Kirby]

There is nothing to say that they can't write a book. Everything that happens in the court room is public record, but its the 'behind closed doors of the jury room' stuff is where it gets interesting. I would assume that the writer would need permission of the other jurors to use their names, but could also refer to them as 'juror 1', 'juror 2' etc.

 

[JuanBolio]

^ this.

 

[Miss Chicken]

One of the jurors in the Zimmerman case says that she is going to write a book about the case. This wouldn't be allowed in my country but I am interested to finding out how much is allowed in different US states. So I will ask the following questions hoping someone might know the answers -

1)After a trial is over is a juror allowed to talk to the media in all states, or do some states ban it? Can a judge forbid it under certain circumstances?

2) Is a juror allowed to identify other jurors by name?

3) Are jurors allowed to talk about anything that is said in the jury room?

EDITED TO ADD - I read that she has dropped her plans to write the book. but I am still would like answers to the questions, if possible.

Hardly a suprise but it sounds like your country is like mine. Jurors aren't allowed to discuss what occured esp as it pertains to Jury deliberations.

I think the law would be pretty much the same in Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and maybe in some other Commonwealth countries.

I wonder what the law is in other countries that have trial by jury.

 

[SeerSGB]

There is nothing to say that they can't write a book. Everything that happens in the court room is public record, but its the 'behind closed doors of the jury room' stuff is where it gets interesting. I would assume that the writer would need permission of the other jurors to use their names, but could also refer to them as 'juror 1', 'juror 2' etc.

Which makes me wonder if the an author could still be held liable for defamation/slander/libel? Example; "Juror 1 said XyZ had it coming" or "Juror 1 was a raging bigot and called XYZ an ABC during deliberations". Especially if it could be proven that the plaintiff was Juror 1.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Everyone has the right to talk about a case after it is over. While there are certainly limits to what can be said during trial in order to ensure a fair trial, the First Amendment right to free speech means that limits afterward are viewed extremely skeptically. As a practical matter, attorneys will often speak to jurors afterward in order to find out what they did wrong so they can improve in the future (this would include why the other jurors voted the way they did). Books are certainly completely unheard of, but I can't see why they would be prohibited.

Whether or not you could use the names of other jurors probably depend on state law. I would think it's generally fine. Some states have a right against commercial appropriation of their image, but I wouldn't think that applies here (otherwise, any news story about an actor would qualify). However, common law libel rules apply because jurors are not public figures. If you write something false about them, even if in good faith, you are liable for damages.

There are efforts to protect the deliberative process similar to other Common Law jurisdictions. They usually relate to things in court, though. A juror is incompetent to testify in court (meaning he can't testify under any circumstances) about things that happened in the jury room and their deliberations. But this is a rule in court, not a rule when it comes to speaking in public.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I guess that is where my country and your country differ. jurors in Australia know that what they say in the jury room is confidential, no-one not even lawyers can ask them about it. It is as private as a confession to a priest or talking to your doctor.

It has been a long time since I did jury service, I am not sure if I had to sign a confidentiality agreement or not. It might be that it is enshrined in law and it automatically.

Edited to add - sometimes jury members have been questionEd about jury behaviour but only when the behaviour has been outside the jury room. For instant, while sequested in a hotel, one jury used a ouija board to reach a decision and another time several jurors decided to investigate on their own by visiting the scene of the crime.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Well, I've never heard of anyone ever publishing a book. I'm also not sure I've seen on camera interviews before. They've certainly explained their verdict, though. For the most part, I think they understand the idea that their deliberations are private, but it's still helpful to the lawyers to know what they found important and they try to strike a balance (apparently, in one of the cases I dealt with, what was important to talk about was one of the lawyer's shoes ).

The evidentiary rule I talked about before would allow testimony of things outside the jury room (like the choice to investigate the scene), but not inside the jury room. But it's more about forcing the jurors to talk rather than a rule preventing them from talk. Basically, the same thing you're used to is true, but it's only true in court.

The jury's forced to be away from their families for two weeks through no fault of their own. I'm fine with the court not imposing additional obligations on them.

 

[Dream]

There is nothing to say that they can't write a book. Everything that happens in the court room is public record, but its the 'behind closed doors of the jury room' stuff is where it gets interesting. I would assume that the writer would need permission of the other jurors to use their names, but could also refer to them as 'juror 1', 'juror 2' etc.

You mean the identities of the jurors aren't already public record?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I don't think they are. The lawyers know, but there's no reason jurors need to be publically identified.

 

[MacLeod]

I guess that is where my country and your country differ. jurors in Australia know that what they say in the jury room is confidential, no-one not even lawyers can ask them about it. It is as private as a confession to a priest or talking to your doctor.

It has been a long time since I did jury service, I am not sure if I had to sign a confidentiality agreement or not. It might be that it is enshrined in law and it automatically.

Edited to add - sometimes jury members have been questionEd about jury behaviour but only when the behaviour has been outside the jury room. For instant, while sequested in a hotel, one jury used a ouija board to reach a decision and another time several jurors decided to investigate on their own by visiting the scene of the crime.

As it is in the UK and no doubt many other Commonwealth countries. What is said in the Jury room is between the Jurors and no one else.

 

[SeerSGB]

Here's a question someone asked me, and I couldn't begin to figure out how you'd prove it: What happens if it's shown that a juror or jury voted a certain way in order to get more media attention--like a book or movie deal--or if a juror was caught taking notes for a book or movie deal during the trial.

I don't see how you could prove it.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Here's a question someone asked me, and I couldn't begin to figure out how you'd prove it: What happens if it's shown that a juror or jury voted a certain way in order to get more media attention--like a book or movie deal--or if a juror was caught taking notes for a book or movie deal during the trial.

I don't see how you could prove it.

Let's assume the juror voted that way in order to convict. If they voted to acquit, double jeopardy would prevent a second trial. An acquittal is an acquittal regardless of motivations.

If they voted to convict, the jury's testimony would inadmissible to prove that juror's motivation. In other words, in a court of law, even if 11 other jurors (or five in Florida) wanted to testify and say that this juror voted for that reason, their deliberations are legally secret and the court can't hear it. In the United States, the jury could tell the news about it, but they can't testify to it. From what I gather, in other common law countries, they could not tell the news either.

This isn't entirely an academic discussion. There was a case where a jury got completely hammered at lunch and continued the case drunk. One of the jurors, who likely also voted to convict, felt guilty thinking that the defendant did not receive a fair trial and wrote a letter to the defense attorney. The defense attorney wanted a retrial. The court (rightly or wrongly) said that "being drunk" wasn't an "outside event" but really was about the jury's state of mind, which is part of the deliberative process. Because of this, the juror who wrote the letter could not testify to this fact and the court found insufficient evidence that the jury was otherwise drunk during the trial.

 

[bigdaddy]

I was talking about how I think writing a book should be illegal if you were in the case. Thankfully the book has been canceled.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

You're going to ban books? That seems draconian.

 

[MacLeod]

Here's a question someone asked me, and I couldn't begin to figure out how you'd prove it: What happens if it's shown that a juror or jury voted a certain way in order to get more media attention--like a book or movie deal--or if a juror was caught taking notes for a book or movie deal during the trial.

I don't see how you could prove it.

Let's assume the juror voted that way in order to convict. If they voted to acquit, double jeopardy would prevent a second trial. An acquittal is an acquittal regardless of motivations.

If they voted to convict, the jury's testimony would inadmissible to prove that juror's motivation. In other words, in a court of law, even if 11 other jurors (or five in Florida) wanted to testify and say that this juror voted for that reason, their deliberations are legally secret and the court can't hear it. In the United States, the jury could tell the news about it, but they can't testify to it. From what I gather, in other common law countries, they could not tell the news either.

This isn't entirely an academic discussion. There was a case where a jury got completely hammered at lunch and continued the case drunk. One of the jurors, who likely also voted to convict, felt guilty thinking that the defendant did not receive a fair trial and wrote a letter to the defense attorney. The defense attorney wanted a retrial. The court (rightly or wrongly) said that "being drunk" wasn't an "outside event" but really was about the jury's state of mind, which is part of the deliberative process. Because of this, the juror who wrote the letter could not testify to this fact and the court found insufficient evidence that the jury was otherwise drunk during the trial.

It would all depend if the deal invovled voting a certain way to get a book deal, the person(s)/company etc. trying to influence the Juror could possible be charged with Jury tampering. So any deals for books/films etc.. should be left to after the trial.

 

[SeerSGB]

You're going to ban books? That seems draconian.

Why not a "cooling off period". Say six months, a year, before you can do interviews and/or profit from your service on the jury.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

^ That would be more reasonable and probably valid.

Here's a question someone asked me, and I couldn't begin to figure out how you'd prove it: What happens if it's shown that a juror or jury voted a certain way in order to get more media attention--like a book or movie deal--or if a juror was caught taking notes for a book or movie deal during the trial.

I don't see how you could prove it.

Let's assume the juror voted that way in order to convict. If they voted to acquit, double jeopardy would prevent a second trial. An acquittal is an acquittal regardless of motivations.

If they voted to convict, the jury's testimony would inadmissible to prove that juror's motivation. In other words, in a court of law, even if 11 other jurors (or five in Florida) wanted to testify and say that this juror voted for that reason, their deliberations are legally secret and the court can't hear it. In the United States, the jury could tell the news about it, but they can't testify to it. From what I gather, in other common law countries, they could not tell the news either.

This isn't entirely an academic discussion. There was a case where a jury got completely hammered at lunch and continued the case drunk. One of the jurors, who likely also voted to convict, felt guilty thinking that the defendant did not receive a fair trial and wrote a letter to the defense attorney. The defense attorney wanted a retrial. The court (rightly or wrongly) said that "being drunk" wasn't an "outside event" but really was about the jury's state of mind, which is part of the deliberative process. Because of this, the juror who wrote the letter could not testify to this fact and the court found insufficient evidence that the jury was otherwise drunk during the trial.

It would all depend if the deal invovled voting a certain way to get a book deal, the person(s)/company etc. trying to influence the Juror could possible be charged with Jury tampering. So any deals for books/films etc.. should be left to after the trial.

Trying to get a juror to vote a certain way in exchange for a book deal would be jury tampering, yes. That could be prosecuted either way. That's a little different from saying that a juror can't talk about the case ever under any circumstances.