Jury Tampering and the Integrity of Criminal Trials

The role of a jury in a criminal trial is an important one. The jury decides whether the accused person is guilty or not guilty. To do this fairly, the jury has a duty to listen to all the evidence presented, speeches made by the attorneys, and the judge’s directions on the law before deciding on a verdict.

For a jury to effectively perform this duty, it is important that they have what the Court calls collective and individual integrity. In simple terms, both the jury as a group and each juror individually must decide the case only on the evidence heard in court.

Jurors are not allowed to conduct their own research, rely on social media, discuss the case with outsiders, or use any information not presented during the trial. This is because evidence in court is carefully tested for reliability and truthfulness through questioning by attorneys and supervision by the Judge. Outside information has not gone through this testing process and may be inaccurate or misleading as a result.

Jury Tampering

One major threat to the fairness of a trial is jury tampering. Jury tampering happens when someone tries to influence, intimidate, threaten, or improperly contact a juror in order to affect the outcome of the case. This can range from direct intimidation or bribery, to indirect risks such as relationships. When there is evidence or a serious concern of jury tampering, the court has the power to remove an individual juror or, in more serious cases, discharge the entire jury to protect the fairness of the trial.

Acquaintanceship with Parties

It may be discovered during a trial that a juror knows someone involved in the case. This could include the accused person, the victim, a witness, or even one of the attorneys. While this may raise concerns about fairness, a juror is not automatically removed simply because of that connection. The judge must decide if that relationship creates a real possibility that the juror may be biased. For example, the courts have previously found that a juror being friendly with the defendant’s brother was not enough to justify removing that juror because there was nothing to show that the juror could not be impartial.

Improper Influences

There may be instances where a juror has been approached or threatened by someone outside the trial. This is sometimes referred to as “contamination” of the jury. When this happens, the judge has a duty to investigate the extent of the contamination and whether the independence of that juror, or even the entire jury, has been compromised.

However, not every instance of contact will automatically result in the juror or jury being discharged. The Court must still consider whether a fair-minded observer would conclude that there is a real possibility of bias. Depending on the seriousness of the situation, the judge may:

• remove only the affected juror; or
• discharge the entire jury and restart the trial with a new panel.

The Vybz Kartel Case

A well-known case involving jury tampering was the appeal involving Adidja Palmer (better known as Vybz Kartel), Shawn Campbell, Kahira Jones and Andrew St. John. This case involved several incidents where the jurors were approached during the trial.

The first incident involved an encounter between a juror and one of the defence attorneys. The trial judge presiding investigated the matter and concluded that the interaction was innocent and unlikely to affect the performance of the jury.

The second incident occurred when a juror visited her son in prison and encountered one of the defendants. The juror expressed fear about what might happen to her son if there was a conviction. Although no threats were actually made, the trial judge was right to discharge that juror, especially considering that the incident was not discussed with the rest of the jury.

The most serious incident involved allegations that a juror had attempted to bribe other members of the jury. The foreperson reported the matter near the end of the trial, which had lasted more than sixty days. Despite the allegation, the trial continued without a full investigation of the remaining jurors, and the defendants were eventually convicted. The Privy Council found that the trial judge should have discharged the entire jury because the integrity had been compromised. The convictions were therefore quashed.

Protecting the Jury from Tampering

Courts have several powers to protect jurors from outside influence. One option is to sequester the jury. This means separating jurors from the public and limiting outside communication for the duration of the trial. The Court may also order police protection for jurors. Additionally, threatening or attempting to improperly influence a juror can amount to criminal contempt and may lead to imprisonment.

Submitted by: Darryl Douglas PD II Junior & Shuzvon Ramdass Public Defender Entry

Public Defenders’ Department

Legal Aid and Advisory Authority,

23 Stanmore Avenue, Port of Spain.

Contact: 638-5222

Email: [email protected]

Website: laaa.org.tt