The Practice of Jury Sequestration Should Continue

The Practice of Jury Sequestration Should Continue

Introduction

These days, it seems as though there's a trial of the century every week or two. Media coverage of court proceedings has never been more intense, even with Nancy Grace focused on Dancing with the Stars. The proliferation of smart phones, tablets, and other internet-connected devices has given jurors almost unlimited access to media reports, which often discuss matters that are not admissible. Even though judges in criminal cases routinely instruct jurors not to “read or listen to any news media coverage of this case or trial”, and not to discuss the case with anyone, it may be difficult for jurors in very high profile trials to avoid seeing, hearing, or reading about the case. Reporters, bloggers, paparazzi, and others may even seek out jurors during trial. One solution to all this is to sequester the jury - to have the jurors stay together, typically at a hotel, for the duration of the trial, with court or security personnel guarding against unauthorized media access by the jurors, and against attempts by media to contact the jurors. North Carolina law clearly authorizes the practice that, “the judge in his discretion may direct that the jurors be sequestered”. Partial sequestration, in which a juror are allowed to sleep at their own homes, but are kept together and isolated during the trial day, is also authorized (Klerman, 2003).

Discussion

So, what do we know about jury sequestration?

It is rare that jury has been sequestered. This Slate article asserts that sequestration “has fallen so far out of favor that judges rarely bother anymore,” because jurors do not like it and tend to drop out of sequestered trials based on personal hardships. However, the Slate piece also notes that “there are a few states that have mandatory sequestration laws for the most serious criminal cases. Missouri, for example, requires that juries in death-penalty cases be sequestered”. A recent study claimed that jurors were sequestered in 24% of all trials, and in 24% of high-profile trials. Paula L. Hannaford-Agor, When All Eyes Are Watching: Trial Characteristics and Practices in Notorious Trials, Judicature 197 (Jan.-Feb. 2008). Perhaps the study used an exceptionally broad definition of sequestration? It is expensive. The Orlando Sentinel notes that the jury in the Casey Anthony case was sequestered at an estimated cost of $360,000. It apparently cost nearly $3 million to sequester the O.J. Simpson jury. (Perhaps as a consequence, no Los Angeles County jury has been sequestered since, according to this report in connection with the case against Conrad Murray, the physician accused of involuntary manslaughter in connection with Michael Jackson's death) (Klerman, 2003).

It is a headache. Sequestration is “rarely fun for jurors.” They are separated from their families, cannot watch TV or read uncensored newspapers, and must live in a hotel. The Simpson jury revolted over the restrictions associated with sequestration. Id. It isn't enjoyable for court staff, either, who must monitor the jurors and keep them fed and ...