The Case Of The Googling Juror

The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that a trial court conducted an inadequate inquiry into possible juror misconduct as described in the headnote

In this appeal, the Court considers whether a trial judge took appropriate steps in response to serious mid-trial allegations of juror misconduct. The claims included that the juror conducted outside research, discussed the case with third parties, texted one of the defendants, and expressed an intent to find the defendants guilty.

The State charged defendants Ebenezer Byrd, Jerry J. Spraulding, and Gregory A. Jean-Baptiste in connection with a 2009 murder. During voir dire of the jury, the trial judge asked a series of open-ended questions, one of which inquired into the “type of work” the jurors did. Juror No. 8 answered that she was “an operating room nurse at a medical center.” She did not state the name of the center. Defendants’ trial began in January 2019.

In February 2019, Byrd’s defense counsel’s secretary emailed the trial judge’s secretary about a call received by the Office of the Public Defender indicating that a juror “has been googling and texting [Byrd] and all of his friends.” After calling the Office to gather more information, the judge’s secretary sent the following email to the judge’s court clerk: “[Employee S.] at the PD’s office took the call. The woman identified herself as ‘Miss Wurty(?)’ but said she doesn’t want to be involved any further. She claims she has a friend who works at Monmouth Medical Center with [A.B.] (I believe she is juror 15). She said [A.B.] has been googling the case, showing articles to and talking about it with other people, and has already decided she is going to find them all guilty and going to ‘burn their asses.’”

The judge informed counsel that he intended to call the named juror up to question her. After deducing that the allegations pertained to Juror No. 8, the judge called her to sidebar and questioned her in the presence of defense counsel. He asked where she works (Monmouth Medical Center); whether, “in terms of any posting or newspaper articles, is there anything outside of what’s been in this courtroom that you have been in contact with?” (no); and general questions about whether her responses to the questions asked during voir dire had changed, including her ability to listen to the evidence and “render a fair and impartial verdict” (no).

Defense counsel objected to the line of questioning and requested additional relief. Ultimately, the judge declined to inquire further. Defense counsel renewed their objections once the court excused the jury for the day, asking the judge to excuse Juror No. 8 for cause. The judge denied the request. The trial continued, and the jury convicted defendants on all counts.

On appeal, Byrd’s counsel moved for a limited remand to reconstruct the record regarding Juror No. 8’s alleged misconduct. The Appellate Division ordered a remand hearing. On remand, the trial judge described what prompted the inquiry into Juror No. 8, marking his notes and a series of emails between court staff as an exhibit for purposes of the remand hearing. Following the limited remand, defendants appealed their convictions and sentences on several grounds. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding, as relevant here, that the trial judge’s response to allegations of Juror No. 8’s misconduct did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The Court granted certification limited to the adequacy of the court’s response to the allegations of misconduct by Juror No. 8. 258 N.J. 456 (2024); 258 N.J. 457 (2024); 258 N.J. 477 (2024).

HELD: The trial judge’s inquiry into the allegations in this case was inadequate. When allegations of juror misconduct arise during trial, the court must assess their plausibility. Once the court is satisfied that the allegations are sufficiently plausible to require questioning, the court is obligated to conduct a specific and probing examination of the juror to determine whether misconduct occurred. Here, the trial judge determined the allegations required an inquiry of the juror but then failed to ask questions that directly addressed the allegations.

The court

To be clear, we do not prescribe a rigid script for trial courts; indeed, this opinion is not a road map for what may or may not be asked. But questions in this context must be tailored to the specific allegations, clear in scope, and designed to provide jurors with an opportunity to disclose any breach of their obligation. Here, the trial court was not required to accuse the juror of misconduct to adequately investigate the allegation. The court could have asked straightforward, neutral questions that were both non-prejudicial and responsive to the concerns raised. For example: “Have you talked about this case at work?” “Have you expressed an opinion about the case to others?” “Have you spoken to anyone at Monmouth Medical Center about it?” Such  questions are tethered to the court’s own jury instructions and would have provided an opportunity for the juror to disclose information material to her impartiality.

Fundamentally, trial judges retain broad discretion in determining whether allegations of juror misconduct are sufficiently plausible to warrant inquiry, in shaping the scope of that inquiry, and in evaluating the credibility of the responses given. However, once the court finds the allegations sufficiently plausible to question the juror, that discretion to ask is not discharged by conducting a superficial or incomplete examination. At that point, the court must undertake a focused and probing inquiry.

This is not an onerous burden. As this Court has previously explained, voir dire of potentially tainted jurors is a minimal and prophylactic procedure — particularly when conducted mid-trial, before deliberations begin or a verdict is rendered. Bey, 112 N.J. at 89-90. This is why courts maintain –alternate jurors: to preserve the integrity of the process when a seated juror’s impartiality is in doubt. For these reasons, we hold that the trial court’s inquiry into Juror No. 8’s alleged misconduct was insufficiently tailored to the allegations against the juror, failed to probe into the heart of the allegations, and was therefore inadequate.

(Mike Frisch)