10

A person is on trial for bank robbery. The perp robbed a bank, and punched a teller. One of the jurors hates banks, and believes "No one can really rob a bank as turn around is fair play". This juror refuses to convict on the robbery despite overwhelming evidence that the crime did occur but does convict on charges based on the perp punching the teller. Assume that this was not asked or known about in juror selection.

  • Is that juror misconduct?

  • Does it change things if the juror lied during juror selection?

And really this could apply to any crime as a person may feel certain laws are unjust.

FD_bfa
  • 6,468
  • 1
  • 21
  • 80
Pete B.
  • 1,164
  • 7
  • 20

3 Answers3

15

Potential jurors will always be asked a question something like:

Is there anything you know of that would prevent you from deciding this case fairly, in accordance with the law as I instruct you and the evidence in this trial?

They are also often asked to commit to informing the judge if at any point during the trial they realize they hold a bias preventing them from exercising their judgment impartially.

The potential juror is asked these questions under oath or affirmation. For the potential juror to not disclose their bias about the subject matter is perjury.

If a question of that sort were not asked, it would be an error of law and a ground of appeal.

Regarding jury nullification generally, see this Q & A: https://law.stackexchange.com/a/94777/46948

Jen
  • 87,647
  • 5
  • 181
  • 381
10

Is that juror misconduct?

No.

Does it change things if the juror lied during juror selection?

It in all likelihood doesn't upset the non-conviction. It would be a basis to punish the juror for lying under oath however.

ohwilleke
  • 257,510
  • 16
  • 506
  • 896
7

No

In the , is a criminal offence to disclose jury deliberations during or after the trial under Section 20D of the Juries Act 1974. In practice, this would protect a juror who refused to convict despite the overwhelming evidence.

If this information was made public, it could allow for a retrial (see, for example, R v Young (1995) where some of the jury used a Ouija board to inform their decision) but only where there was evidence of prohibited conduct. However, if the courts need to compromise the secrecy of the jury's deliberations to confirm or clarify this, then this would not take place and there would be no retrial.

In short, without additional facts, the present situation is as follows:

"At present the law does not criminalise reaching a verdict which, in the opinion of the trial judge, is contrary to the evidence or direction, unless there is evidence that prohibited conduct has been engaged in." - Mountford Chambers

FD_bfa
  • 6,468
  • 1
  • 21
  • 80