Juror misconduct is any act by a juror that breaks the court’s rules or ignores the judge’s instructions, from Googling a defendant’s name to lying during jury selection to deciding a case by coin flip. Jurors swear an oath to decide a case on the evidence presented in court and nothing else. When they stray from that duty, the trial’s fairness is at stake, and the consequences can run from a thrown-out verdict to fines, contempt sanctions, or criminal prosecution of the juror.
Outside Research and Outside Contact
The most common form of misconduct today is looking things up. Federal courts tell jurors they cannot use phones, tablets, computers, or any device to research the case, the people involved, or the legal issues. That ban covers search engines, mapping tools, court record databases, and social media.1United States Courts. Eighth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions A juror who looks up a medical term from expert testimony or checks a defendant’s social media has committed misconduct, even if the search feels harmless.
The prohibition reaches beyond the internet. Jurors cannot read news articles about the case, watch television coverage, listen to radio reports, or visit any location connected to the events. They are also instructed to disregard anything about the case they encounter accidentally.1United States Courts. Eighth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions
Contact with outsiders is equally off-limits. Jurors cannot discuss the case with family, friends, or coworkers, and they cannot discuss it among themselves until the judge formally sends the case to them for deliberation. Premature conversations can lock jurors into positions before all the evidence is in.1United States Courts. Eighth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions
When an outsider makes private contact with a juror about the case, the U.S. Supreme Court treats it as presumptively harmful to the defendant. Under Remmer v. United States, the government bears a heavy burden to prove the contact was harmless.2Justia. Remmer v United States, 347 US 227 (1954) Even a short exchange can unravel a conviction on appeal.
Lying During Jury Selection
Misconduct can start before the trial, during voir dire. Attorneys and the judge ask prospective jurors about their backgrounds, relationships, and potential biases. A juror who lies or hides information commits a serious violation. One federal court warns prospective jurors that a deliberately untruthful answer to a fair question “could result in serious punishment.”3U.S. District Court. The Voir Dire Examination
Typical examples: concealing a personal connection to someone involved in the case, hiding a strong opinion about the type of crime being tried, or lying about a criminal record. A juror in a sexual assault case who fails to disclose being a victim of a similar crime may not be able to weigh the evidence without that experience coloring every decision. Courts specifically ask about relationships with the parties, attorneys, and witnesses for this reason.3U.S. District Court. The Voir Dire Examination
When voir dire dishonesty surfaces after a verdict, McDonough Power Equipment v. Greenwood sets the bar for a new trial. The party seeking relief must show that the juror failed to answer a material question honestly, and that a truthful answer would have given the attorney a valid reason to strike that juror for cause.4Legal Information Institute. McDonough Power Equipment Inc v Greenwood, 464 US 548 (1984) Forgetting a detail is not the same as lying, and some concealed information would not have changed jury selection anyway.
Problems During Deliberations
After both sides rest and the judge delivers instructions, the jury retires to deliberate. The verdict is supposed to come from a real discussion where each juror applies the law to the evidence. Several behaviors can corrupt that process.
Deciding the case by chance is the clearest violation. Flipping a coin or drawing lots defeats the entire purpose of a jury, and courts will throw out a verdict reached that way.
Coercion is another problem. One juror pressuring another through threats, intimidation, or sustained bullying to change a vote undermines the requirement that each verdict be the juror’s own. A holdout should be free to hold a position through legitimate discussion.
Refusing to deliberate is subtler. A juror who announces a position and then refuses to discuss the evidence or listen to others is not fulfilling the role. That is different from a juror who participates but remains unconvinced, and the line between a stubborn juror and one exercising independent judgment is notoriously hard to draw. That is one reason judges are cautious about removing jurors mid-deliberation.
Impaired or Sleeping Jurors
A juror who is intoxicated, under the influence of drugs, or asleep during testimony is not meaningfully participating. These situations come up more often than most people guess. In Tanner v. United States, the Supreme Court heard allegations that several jurors drank alcohol during lunch breaks and that some used marijuana and cocaine during the trial.5Justia. Tanner v United States, 483 US 107 (1987)
If a juror dozes off during key testimony, they miss evidence the rest of the jury heard. Judges can address this mid-trial by waking the juror, issuing warnings, or substituting an alternate. Proving impairment after a verdict is harder, for reasons the next section explains.
Why Misconduct Inside the Jury Room Often Stays Hidden
Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) creates a strong barrier: after a verdict, jurors generally cannot testify about anything that happened during deliberations. A juror cannot take the stand to describe what others said, how they voted, or what influenced their thinking.6United States Courts. Federal Rules of Evidence
The rule exists for a reason. Without it, every losing party would try to interview jurors and pick deliberations apart, and jury discussions would lose the candor that makes them work. But the protection has a cost: serious misconduct behind closed doors can be nearly impossible to prove.
Rule 606(b) carves out only three narrow exceptions. A juror may testify about whether outside information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention, whether an outside influence was brought to bear on any juror, or whether a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form.6United States Courts. Federal Rules of Evidence Notice what is missing: a juror who was drunk, a juror who refused to deliberate, or a juror who flipped a coin. Under Tanner, even juror intoxication during trial is not an “outside influence” that opens the door to post-verdict juror testimony.5Justia. Tanner v United States, 483 US 107 (1987)
The Court reasoned that other safeguards catch these problems in real time: voir dire screening, observation by attorneys and court staff during trial, and fellow jurors reporting concerns to the judge before a verdict is entered. The practical takeaway is stark. If misconduct happens inside the jury room and nobody reports it until after the verdict, Rule 606(b) will likely block the evidence needed to prove it.
The Racial Bias Exception
In 2017, the Supreme Court carved out a constitutional exception in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado. When a juror makes a clear statement during deliberations showing reliance on racial stereotypes or racial hostility to convict a defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires Rule 606(b) to give way. The Court treated racial bias as different from other misconduct because it “implicates unique historical, constitutional, and institutional concerns.”7Supreme Court of the United States. Pena-Rodriguez v Colorado The exception is narrow. It requires a clear statement of racial bias, not merely an inference.
What Happens to the Case
What happens to the trial depends on when the misconduct comes to light. If a judge learns of the problem before the verdict, the options are more flexible. The judge can question the juror, issue a curative instruction, remove the offending juror and seat an alternate, or declare a mistrial, which starts the case over with a new jury.
When misconduct surfaces after a guilty verdict in a federal criminal case, the defense can file a motion for a new trial. For claims based on newly discovered evidence, the deadline is three years after the verdict. For all other grounds, the motion must be filed within 14 days.8Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 33 – New Trial In federal civil cases, the general deadline for a new trial motion is 28 days after the entry of judgment.9Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59 – New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
Even proven misconduct does not automatically earn a new trial. The party seeking relief usually must show the misconduct was serious enough to have affected the outcome. A juror who briefly glanced at a news headline is treated very differently from one who spent hours researching the defendant’s criminal history online.
What Happens to the Juror
A juror who commits misconduct faces personal penalties separate from what happens to the case. The most common tool is contempt of court. Federal courts have broad authority to punish contempt through fines and imprisonment when someone disobeys a court order or obstructs the administration of justice.10Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 401 – Power of Court Because jurors receive explicit written and verbal instructions, violating them can qualify as disobedience.
For jurors who fail to comply with a federal jury summons or court directive, the Jury Selection and Service Act authorizes fines up to $1,000, imprisonment up to three days, community service, or a combination.11Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1866 – Selection and Summoning of Jury Panels More serious misconduct brings steeper penalties. Federal law makes it a crime to corruptly influence or obstruct a juror, carrying up to 10 years in prison in most cases and up to 20 years when connected to a serious felony trial.12Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 1503 – Influencing or Injuring Officer or Juror Generally Those statutes are aimed primarily at outsiders tampering with jurors, but a juror who actively corrupts deliberations or accepts bribes faces exposure under the same laws.
In practice, criminal prosecution of a juror for conduct like unauthorized internet research is rare. Contempt sanctions and fines are far more common. The possibility of criminal charges still exists and functions as a deterrent for intentional and egregious violations.
Reporting Juror Misconduct
If you are a juror and you witness misconduct, report it. Federal courts instruct jurors to tell the judge directly about any improper behavior by a fellow juror. The same goes if anyone outside the trial tries to communicate with you about the case: refuse to listen, say the contact is improper, and inform the judge. If you accidentally learn something about the case from an outside source, report it to the court rather than mentioning it to other jurors.13U.S. District Court. Conduct of the Jury During the Trial
For attorneys who suspect misconduct, timing is everything. Raising the issue during trial gives the judge the full range of options: questioning the juror, issuing a curative instruction, replacing the juror with an alternate, or declaring a mistrial. Waiting until after a verdict narrows the path considerably, because Rule 606(b) limits what evidence can be considered and new-trial deadlines are tight. An attorney with reason to believe a juror is researching the case or communicating with outsiders should bring it to the court’s attention immediately rather than hold it in reserve for appeal.