I'm working on a novel about jury nullification. The jury decided to ignore the judge's orders and to define what they think the law is. The judge hears the rumor and summons the foreperson to their chambers to find out what the jury is up to.
My question: can the foreperson refuse to answer, or would that be contempt?
One of the similar questions from a year ago mentions Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b). But my question is different.
The case North Carolina v. Sanders contains many of the requisite elements. The first question is whether the judge can inquire into possible juror misconduct which may involve "giving cautionary instructions to the jury, replacing a juror with an alternate, or declaring a mistrial, but may also include more severe measures such as contempt proceedings, criminal charges, and other sanctions". One of the pertinent categories of misconduct is "Refusal to Deliberate According to the Law", the Sanders case being the exemplar.
In this case, during deliberations, a note was passed to the judge that suggested juror misconduct among other things (viz. a hung jury). In response, the judge met with both counsels in the presence of the defendant and there was "what do we do?" discussion, the prosecutor suggesting investigation into the juror misconduct issue. At this point, the foreman was brought in. In short, a judge can question the jury foreman if there is an accusation of misconduct (a juror talking to police and a judge, and investigating on their own).
At this point, the foreman did identify the accused juror. One could imagine a juror (at least in the US) thinking that everything that goes on in the deliberation rule is an absolute secret and that a judge cannot inquire into what goes on in the jury room. This impression is supported by FRE 606 which says that
a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s vote; or any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror’s affidavit or evidence of a juror’s statement on these matters
which could then lead a juror (including the foreman) to refuse to answer those questions. However: this rule has relevant exceptions, when
(A) extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention;
(B) an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; or
(C) a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form.
In Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, SCOTUS affirmed the validity of the no-impeachment rule, while also clarifying the limited exceptions. In that case, racial prejudice is a clear-cut case of an exception.
Because of the no-impeachment rule, a judge does not have open-ended power to interrogate jurors, any questioning would have to fall within the purview of an exception. A person cannot be in contempt of court for refusing an illegal order. The challenge for your scenario is to make this inquiry by the judge be legal. A belief is not a form of misconduct, but a juror's specific statements (which in the Sanders case amounted to testifying as to what the law means, which is disallowed). Although the deliberations were allowed to continue even with this revelation (there was an admonition to disregard the juror's "testimony", but the whole proceeding degenerated into squabbling and a mistrial was declared.
The reason why the judge was allowed to interrogate the foreman is that there was a sufficiently specific allegation of misconduct as defined under North Carolina law that there existed an exception to the no-impeachment rule. As you describe it, there isn't a legal basis for setting aside the rule.
The judge has the power under s55D and s55DA to examine jurors under oath in certain circumstances, and the juror cannot refuse to answer, although if their answers are self-incriminating, they must be given immunity.
Since the judge has heard "rumours", someone in the jury must have been talking outside the jury room. This would be sufficient to trigger a s55DA enquiry to determine if a contravention of s68C regarding juror inquiries had occurred.
Refusing to answer is contempt; lying is perjury.
To figure this out, you also need to be in the clear on what kind of a court you're in: civil, state (?), or federal.
A jury always has the obligation to explain how and why they came to a certain sentence. You would have to look into when this becomes a matter of law during the trial, because the reaching of a verdict takes careful deliberation and all the facts.
During the trial the facts will be made known and the jury may reach a different conclusion in terms of what laws apply than they had at the beginning. It's natural to make estimates, but you need to make sure they don't turn into prejudice. Maybe that would be your angle, the nature of prejudice.
The judge not agreeing with the jury isn't always a reason for them to get kicked out, mostly because the judge isn't allowed to act with prejudice either.
The way I recall American law, the jury reaches a verdict of either guilty or not guilty. In case of the latter you are free to go. When found guilty, the judge can still issue a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto (federal law may have a different term for it), overturning the ruling of the jury.
That would also be a question you need to answer: why doesn't the judge just wait to the end of the trial and let matters take their course? How do the jury obstruct or break with procedures and procedural law?
