Misconduct by jurors

Misconduct by jurors is improper juror behavior during a civil trial that can affect fairness, like outside research, outside communications, or hiding bias. In Civil Procedure, it often comes up when a party asks for a mistrial or new trial.

What is misconduct by jurors?

Misconduct by jurors is when jurors do something that breaks the rules of a fair trial and can affect the verdict in a civil case. The core idea in Civil Procedure is simple: a jury is supposed to decide the dispute only from the evidence admitted in court and the law given by the judge. If jurors bring in outside information or ignore their duties, the losing party may challenge the result.

Common examples include discussing the case with people outside the jury, looking up facts on the internet, reading news coverage about the dispute, or posting about the case on social media. A juror can also act improperly by doing an independent investigation, like visiting a scene on their own or researching a party, witness, or legal issue. These acts matter because they can add information the other side never got to test through objections, cross-examination, or rebuttal.

Misconduct can also happen before deliberations even begin. During voir dire, jurors are questioned about bias, relationships, and background experiences. If a juror hides a significant bias or answers dishonestly, that can matter just as much as what happens inside the jury room, because the jury may never have been properly selected in the first place.

Courts do not treat every mistake the same way. A judge usually looks at whether the behavior actually created prejudice, meaning whether it likely affected the fairness of the trial or the verdict. Some misconduct is serious enough that the judge may hold a hearing, question jurors, and decide whether to grant a mistrial or a motion for a new trial. Lesser issues may be ignored if they do not appear to have changed the outcome.

This is why juror misconduct is tied closely to trial integrity. Civil Procedure cares not just about finishing a case, but about finishing it with a process the court can trust. If jurors act on information or bias outside the record, the verdict may no longer reflect the evidence and arguments that were actually presented in court.

Why misconduct by jurors matters in Civil Procedure

Misconduct by jurors shows how Civil Procedure protects the fairness of a trial after the evidence has already been presented. A civil verdict is supposed to come from an impartial jury, so when a juror brings in outside facts or a hidden bias, the whole decision can become unreliable.

This term also connects directly to post-trial motions. If a party can show that juror misconduct probably affected the verdict, the judge may order a new trial or, in a more serious situation, declare a mistrial. That makes the term useful for understanding why trial errors do not always end when the jury leaves the courtroom.

It also helps you spot the difference between a harmless mistake and a problem that undermines the process. Civil Procedure does not overturn every verdict because something odd happened. The question is usually whether the misconduct damaged the integrity of the proceeding enough to justify the court stepping in.

For class discussions and case analysis, this term is a good marker for spotting when the jury has crossed the line from deciding the case to investigating it on its own. That shift changes the procedural posture fast, because the issue becomes not just who won, but whether the trial itself was fair.

How misconduct by jurors connects across the course

Voir Dire

Voir dire is where many juror misconduct problems start, because this is when lawyers and the judge question prospective jurors about bias, relationships, and life experiences. If someone with a hidden conflict slips through, the later challenge may focus on whether the person answered honestly during selection. That makes voir dire the main front-end check against juror misconduct.

Mistrial

A mistrial is one possible response when juror misconduct is severe enough that the trial cannot fairly continue. In Civil Procedure, that usually means the judge thinks the process has been compromised and a clean verdict is no longer realistic. Misconduct does not automatically cause a mistrial, but it can be the event that triggers one.

McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood

This case is often used with juror honesty during voir dire. It matters when a juror fails to disclose information that might have supported a challenge for cause or influenced jury selection. If you are analyzing misconduct by jurors, this case helps you think about whether a dishonest answer was serious enough to affect the fairness of the trial.

Jury Tampering

Jury tampering is different from ordinary juror misconduct because it involves an outside person trying to influence a juror. Misconduct by jurors usually comes from the juror’s own actions, like research or outside communication. The two concepts often appear together because both raise the same basic concern, an unfair verdict based on improper influence.

Is misconduct by jurors on the Civil Procedure exam?

A case analysis or short-answer question may give you a juror who googled a witness, posted about the trial, or lied during voir dire. Your job is to identify the misconduct, explain why it threatens impartiality, and say what remedy the judge might consider, such as a hearing, mistrial, or new trial motion.

If the fact pattern mentions outside research, social media, or hidden bias, connect it to the rule that jurors must decide the case only on the evidence in court. When the question asks whether the verdict should stand, focus on prejudice, not just the fact that something improper happened. That is the move Civil Procedure wants you to make.

Misconduct by jurors vs Jury Tampering

These are easy to mix up, but they point to different actors. Misconduct by jurors comes from the jurors themselves, while jury tampering involves someone outside the jury trying to influence a juror. Both can threaten fairness, but the source of the problem is different.

Key things to remember about misconduct by jurors

• Misconduct by jurors is improper behavior by jurors that can affect the fairness of a civil trial.

• Common examples include outside research, talking about the case outside deliberations, social media posts, and hiding bias during voir dire.

• The main Civil Procedure question is whether the misconduct likely prejudiced the verdict.

• If the misconduct is serious enough, the judge may hold a hearing and consider a mistrial or a new trial.

• This term matters because civil verdicts must come from evidence presented in court, not from information jurors gather on their own.

Frequently asked questions about misconduct by jurors

What is misconduct by jurors in Civil Procedure?

It is improper behavior by jurors that can interfere with a fair civil trial. That can include outside research, discussing the case with non-jurors, using social media about the trial, or hiding a relevant bias. The issue is whether the jurors stayed within the evidence and instructions given in court.

What happens if juror misconduct is proven?

A judge may investigate, hold a hearing, and decide whether the misconduct harmed the trial’s fairness. If the problem likely affected the verdict, the court may grant a mistrial or a motion for a new trial. If the misconduct seems harmless, the verdict may still stand.

How is juror misconduct different from voir dire problems?

Voir dire problems happen during jury selection, often when a juror gives a false or incomplete answer about bias or background. Juror misconduct usually refers to improper behavior during the trial or deliberations. The two can overlap if a juror hides something during voir dire and later acts unfairly in the case.

Can a juror look up information about the case on their own?

No, that is a classic example of misconduct. Jurors are supposed to decide the case based only on admitted evidence and the judge’s instructions, not on outside investigation. Independent research can introduce facts the other side never got to challenge.