Legal Definitions - jury-fixing

Jury-fixing refers to the illegal act of corrupting or improperly influencing one or more jurors in a trial, with the specific aim of causing them to make decisions that ultimately alter the trial's verdict or outcome. It involves an unlawful effort to gain the cooperation of a juror, and that cooperation must actually succeed in affecting the trial's result.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Bribery in a Civil Case: During a complex civil lawsuit concerning a multi-million dollar contract dispute, an associate of the defendant secretly approaches a juror and offers a substantial cash payment in exchange for a verdict in the defendant's favor. The juror accepts the bribe and, during deliberations, strongly advocates for the defendant's position, ultimately swaying enough fellow jurors to achieve that outcome.

  This illustrates jury-fixing because an illegal payment was made to procure a juror's cooperation, and that cooperation directly influenced the trial's outcome by securing a favorable verdict for the defendant.

• Coercion in a Criminal Trial: In a high-profile criminal case involving a notorious organized crime figure, a member of the defendant's organization subtly threatens a juror's family if the juror does not vote to acquit their leader. Fearing for their loved ones, the juror deliberately introduces doubt and confusion during deliberations, leading to a hung jury and a mistrial, which was the gang's desired outcome to avoid a conviction.

  This is jury-fixing because the juror's cooperation was illegally obtained through coercion and threats, and their actions during deliberations directly led to a specific outcome (a hung jury) that benefited the party attempting the fix.

• Improper Communication and Manipulation: A plaintiff's paralegal, acting independently and without the knowledge of the legal team, discovers a juror's personal email address and sends anonymous messages containing fabricated "evidence" and misleading information about the defendant's past, designed to prejudice the juror. The juror, influenced by these messages, becomes a vocal advocate for the plaintiff during deliberations, presenting the fabricated information as if it were their own insight, and significantly contributes to a verdict in the plaintiff's favor.

  This demonstrates jury-fixing as an illegal, outside communication was used to improperly influence a juror's perspective, and that juror's biased participation in deliberations directly contributed to the final verdict.