Jury sequestration
Jury sequestration is a legal process used to ensure that jurors remain impartial during trials, particularly in high-profile or controversial cases. This practice involves isolating jurors from outside influences, such as news reports, family, and friends, to prevent any information that could bias their decision-making. Sequestered jurors stay together in a designated location, usually a hotel, during the trial, which can significantly affect their personal lives and lead to additional costs for the court, including expenses for food and lodging.
Judges may opt for sequestration when there is a risk that jurors could be exposed to inadmissible evidence or prejudicial information that might influence the verdict. During the jury selection process, potential jurors may be questioned about the hardships that sequestration could cause them, allowing judges to consider individual circumstances before making a decision. Throughout the trial, bailiffs monitor the jurors to ensure they do not encounter any external information related to the case, including restricting access to newspapers, television, and social media. In cases where a juror violates these restrictions, they may be dismissed and replaced by an alternate juror, who is also sequestered. Overall, jury sequestration aims to uphold the integrity of the judicial process by safeguarding the jurors' focus solely on the evidence presented in court.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Jury sequestration
SIGNIFICANCE: Impartiality is essential to jurors, and sequestration prevents them from being improperly influenced by news reports, family members, friends, or other sources of information.
A paramount concern for judges during jury trials is ensuring that jurors’ decisions are based on properly presented evidence. In controversial cases there are fears that jurors’ exposure to news reports or opinionated acquaintances will improperly affect jury deliberations and the verdict. In such cases judges may order the jury to be sequestered in order to shield jurors from improper sources of information. Because jurors must live together in a hotel away from their friends and family, jury sequestration imposes significant costs on the personal lives of jurors. Sequestration also generates significant expenses for the court, which must pay for the jurors’ food and lodging throughout the course of the trial.
Sequestration may occur in cases involving highly publicized crimes or well-known defendants. Sequestration may be particularly appropriate when the news media informs the public about information and evidence that is not admissible in court. For example, if the police found a bloody weapon in the defendant’s home but that weapon could not be presented at trial because it was found during an illegal search, the judge may sequester the jury to prevent the jurors from reading about the weapon in the newspapers.
Because of the cost and inconvenience of jury sequestration, judges rarely order it. Judges must often make a decision about sequestration at the beginning of a trial. If sequestration is possible, judges may ask potential jurors during jury selection if sequestration would create special hardships that would make it exceptionally unfair or difficult for them to serve. For example, the mother of a young child may be excused from jury duty if the judge agrees that sequestration would pose an exceptional hardship for the mother and child.
When jurors are sequestered, bailiffs must monitor their contact with the outside world. In some situations, bailiffs cut out and destroy all newspaper articles about the trial before the newspapers are given to the jurors. Bailiffs also monitor television programs watched by jurors to make sure that they do not watch news stories about the trial. Sequestered jurors are not allowed to access social media and may have their cell phone use monitored or limited. Judges also instruct jurors on the importance of their responsibilities and warn them to avoid all news reports and conversations about the trial. If the bailiffs or other jurors inform the judge that a specific juror has read prohibited newspaper articles, talked about the case with outsiders, or otherwise undertaken forbidden behavior, the judge may dismiss the juror from the case and seat an alternate. In major cases, alternate jurors are sequestered along with the regular jurors and hear the same evidence presented in court, even if they are not ultimately permitted to participate in deliberating the verdict.
Bibliography
Abramson, Jeffery. We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994.
Jonakait, Randolph N. The American Jury System. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003.
"Jury Sequestration." USLegal, 2024, courts.uslegal.com/jury-system/issues-pertaining-to-the-jurys-performance-of-its-duties/jury-sequestration/. Accessed 8 July 2024.
"Jury Sequestration: What Is It And What’s The Purpose?" Varghese Summersett, 2024, versustexas.com/jury-sequestration/. Accessed 8 July 2024.
Schwartz, Victor E., et al. Safeguarding the Right to a Representative Jury: The Need for Improved Jury Service Laws. Washington, D.C.: National Legal Center for the Public Interest, 2003.
Stanley, Jacqueline. Jurors’ Rights. Naperville, Ill.: Sourcebooks, 1998.