Legal Definitions - jury-packing

Jury-packing refers to the unethical and illegal practice of intentionally manipulating the jury selection process to ensure that the chosen jurors are already biased or prejudiced in favor of one particular side in a legal case. The goal is to create a jury that is predisposed to rule a certain way, rather than impartially considering the evidence presented during the trial.

Here are some examples illustrating jury-packing:

• Example 1 (Criminal Prosecution): In a high-profile criminal trial, a prosecutor, eager to secure a conviction, instructs their team to use their limited peremptory challenges primarily against potential jurors who express any skepticism about law enforcement or who have previously served on juries that acquitted defendants in similar cases. The aim is to seat jurors who are more likely to trust police testimony and government officials, thereby increasing the chances of a guilty verdict.

  Explanation: This illustrates jury-packing because the prosecutor is not seeking impartial jurors, but rather actively trying to eliminate those who might be critical of the prosecution's case, in favor of those likely to be sympathetic to the state, thus predetermining the jury's composition.

• Example 2 (Civil Defense): During a large class-action lawsuit against a major technology company for alleged privacy violations, the company's legal team conducts extensive, improper background checks on potential jurors, including their social media posts and donation history. They then strategically use their challenges to remove individuals who have expressed negative views about large corporations, have publicly supported privacy advocacy groups, or have previously participated in similar lawsuits. Their objective is to select jurors who are more likely to be skeptical of the plaintiffs' claims and sympathetic to the corporate defendant.

  Explanation: Here, the defense team is engaging in jury-packing by deliberately trying to exclude jurors who might be inclined to rule against their client, and instead selecting those perceived as more favorable to the corporation, thereby undermining the impartiality of the jury through illicit means.

• Example 3 (Politically Charged Case): In a criminal trial against a prominent environmental activist accused of property damage during a protest, the defense team, through improper communication channels, attempts to subtly influence the jury pool by disseminating specific, one-sided information about the activist's perceived noble intentions and the alleged corporate wrongdoing that prompted the protest. This is done within communities known to be part of the jury pool, hoping to sway potential jurors' opinions before the formal selection process (voir dire) even begins, ensuring a jury predisposed to the activist's cause.

  Explanation: This demonstrates jury-packing by showing an attempt to create a jury that is already leaning towards one side, not through direct manipulation of the selection process itself, but by influencing the pool of potential jurors before they are even questioned, thereby compromising their impartiality and predisposing them to a particular outcome.