Post-Verdict Meetings with Juries

Section 100.3(B)(10) of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct states: “A judge shall not commend or criticize jurors for their verdict other than in a court order or opinion in a proceeding, but may express appreciation to jurors for their service to the judicial system and the community.”

Even if done in a temperate manner, a judge's criticism of jurors who perform their lawful function in good faith is improper and can undermine public confidence in an essential element of the legal process: participation by average citizens in the justice system. Jurors who leave jury service, having been told by the judge, for example, that they acquitted a guilty person, are apt to remember that message if they are called again for jury service. Similarly, jurors who convict a defendant might be more inclined to convict again if praised by the judge for their action. Though it has been rare in our experience for jurors to be praised for an acquittal, such commentary by a judge may also leave an impression that might influence their subsequent service.

The Commission cautioned one judge who expressed his dissatisfaction so strongly that some jurors were upset to the point of tears. Another judge told a jury that the defendant had a criminal record which could not be brought out at trial because the defendant chose not to testify. The lesson to jurors may be that when a defendant exercises the constitutional right not to testify, he or she has a criminal record. For that message to be imparted to those who serve and will serve again as jurors is not only inappropriate, it is prejudicial.

Adapted from the 1994 and 1997 Annual Reports.