General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Juror Says ‘George Zimmerman Got Away With Murder’ [View all]branford
(4,462 posts)As you correctly observe, jurors, individually or collectively, generally need not explain how they arrived at a verdict. A juror may vote to acquit even if they believe that the defendant is guilty - the classic case of jury nullification. Sadly, a juror can also vote to convict even if they believe that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Historically, poor, minority defendants suffer the latter fate far too often. However, as a practicing attorney in NYC (commercial litigator), it is my belief that the vast majority of jurors take their jobs very seriously and honestly strive to fairly listen to and evaluate the testimony and other evidence at trial and apply the law at given to them by the judge.
The only time that the authorities can intrude into sanctity of jury deliberations and legally punish a juror is in the case of jury tampering or corruption. If it can be proven that a juror intentionally lied to get on a jury, took a bribe for their vote, etc., the juror would have committed a separate criminal violation subject to punishment. A strong opinion favoring the prosecution or defense, bad manners or nastiness, refusal to change their vote in deliberation or outright bigotry, in no way would be considered criminal. If a juror is disruptive during the trial or refuses to deliberate with the other jurors, the judge could dismiss them from the jury, but they would not be subject to any other sanction.
If jury tampering is proven after a verdict of guilty is entered, the judge would likely declare a mistrial. Absent issues such as the involvement of the prosecution or defense in corrupting the juror, the prosecution, at its discretion, could then retry the case. If the verdict in the case is not guilty, the verdict would likely remain unless it could be proven that the defense or defendant criminally corrupted the jury (e.g., bribes, criminal threats, etc.), and then the defendant would likely only stand trial for jury tampering.