but Was It a Constitutional Violation?

Jurors conducted an experiment using extrinsic evidence. No harm, no foul?

During voir dire in New Jersey v. Andujar, a prosecutor ran a criminal background check on one prospective African American juror in order to have that juror challenged for cause. The appellate court determined that the trial judge, before dismissing the juror for cause, should have made a finding of fact regarding the validity of the criminal background check.

Messages from a jury to a judge should be disclosed to counsel. Counsel should be afforded an opportunity to be heard before the trial judge responds.

The Fourth Circuit in United States v. Johnson held that defendants were entitled to an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Remmer v. United States to determine if jurors remained impartial after a juror said defendants’ associates took cellphone photos of jurors during trial.

At Lee Christensen’s trial, several jurors reviewed Facebook posts discussing threats of riots and retaliation against jurors if they did not find the defendant guilty. The Iowa Court of Appeals (Iowa v. Christensen) concluded that the extraneous information introduced into the jury room was calculated to – and with reasonable probability did – influence the jury verdict. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in denying Christensen’s new trial motion.

When in doubt about extraneous influence on a juror, a trial court should hold a hearing.