Suppose I, an atheist, was on a jury and some of the jurors wanted to hold group prayers to ask for guidance from God in our deliberations.
Let’s say I not only refuse to participate, I mock them for delusional thinking. If one or more of them complain to the court about me and my attitude, could I likely be removed from the jury?
Let’s say I complain to the court about the prayers, and the very concept of seeking God’s guidance in reaching a verdict. Might the jurors who advocated for divine guidance be removed? After all, as I understand it we are only supposed to consider evidence presented in the courtroom, and unless God testified God’s opinion shouldn’t be relevant. Plus the idea that a juror believes that God’s guidance is necessary to make a correct decision suggests to me that any juror who believes this shouldn’t be sitting in judgement. It is a jury of people, not of the divine.
Perhaps there’s some actual case history involving this. If so, I suspect my opinion on these matters won’t be supported by it.
Mocking them for delusional thinking in the jury room? Of course you could get in trouble for that, the same as any other juror could get in trouble for acting like an asshole to the other jurors. I would love to see the judge’s reaction when he or she got that note from the foreman.
Prayers for guidance are going to be fine, unless you’re conceding that the result of the prayers would be the introduction of new evidence. Presumably you don’t expect that they’re actually going to receive an answer, so there’s no conflict. Consulting specific Biblical passages for guidance would be (and has been found) a constitutional problem, though. The jurors’ job is to take the law as the judge gives it to them and then use their own good sense to apply the law to the facts. If they get together and pray essentially for God to help them do it, because it’s hard, that’s fine. If they look in the Bible to see what Jesus said about grand theft dromedary or whatever, you’ve got a complaint.
But surely there is a good possibility that such a juror could think something is an answer from God, or that their “gut feeling” is sufficient for a verdict, in this situation.
Unfortunately religion tends to get special status though. I mean, you swear on the Bible (or other scripture), right?
I got dismissed from a jury selection after answering one of the questions with a god reference. “So, can YOU, as a jury member, ever really know the truth of what really happened?” and I answered “Well no, I guess only god would know that.”. Which was amusing, as I’m atheist. But it got a crooked-eyebrow look, and an immediate dismissal, for which I wasn’t ungrateful.
I don’t see where religion makes any difference when it comes to “gut feelings.” I think that jurors convict or don’t convict based on gut feelings all the time. They aren’t supposed to, but really there’s no way to tell what’s going on in each juror’s private deliberations. And at least arguably there’s no way for the individual juror to distinguish his conclusion based on the evidence from his conclusion based on his intuition, spiritual or not.
If juror #4 sees a bird land on the windowsill and advocates for a not guilty because that bird is a Jesus says not guilty bird, you have a problem, because jurors aren’t allowed to consider the presence or absence of birds Jesus sent. But Boyo Jim asked about complaining about the concept of seeking guidance in the first place. What I’m saying is that the difference between a jury deliberation where a bunch of Christians and a couple others sit quietly for a minute while the Christians pray before deliberating and a jury deliberation where a bunch of Christians and a couple others don’t do that is not a big enough difference that it’s a legal issue. The complaint there is not about the influence on deliberation; it’s about Boyo Jim thinking his fellow jurors are contemptible.
Of course I don’t expect it, but I don’t think that’s particularly relevant. What if the juror expects it?
What if a juror announces that God told him to vote innocent or guilty? IMO it shouldn’t matter if that vote is in agreement with every other vote – that juror should not be allowed to vote based on a claimed revelation from God.
In practice, of course, a juror in a criminal trial can vote to acquit on any basis, or no basis at all.
Also, on narrower issues, many of the questions jurors decide in evaluating evidence are not mechanical but rather require the exercise of subjective judgments. Should I believe this witness? Is this really a sufficient motive? Is it reasonable to believe that this person would not have known that? Etc.
Generally speaking, these are questions where there isn’t only one method of deciding; everyone, religious or non-religious, is going to draw upon his or her own values and experiences. Indeed, that’s basically why the legal system has juries, because it recognizes that there isn’t one source for all wisdom.
More generally, what recourse does the court have it it comes out that a jury or some members of a jury acted on the basis of something other than evidence? I know there are cases of jury verdicts being vacated and jury members punished, but I don’t know the rules for such things. Presumably only guilty verdicts can be vacated due to double jeopardy, but maybe not, if the courts have found that jeopardy doesn’t attach if the jurors are unwilling to consider evidence of guilt. Any lawyers want to chime in?
I would have to believe that, as non-sworn testimony, guidance from God would not be admissable as evidence and should be disregarded by the jury in their deliberations.
I got some really dirty looks when I had jury duty and insisted on being “affirmed in” seperately by the clerk instead of just responding yes when she asked the group “Do you swear or affirm by Almightly God…” like the rest of the group. Didn’t get me struck from the jury though. Nobodly handled a Bible when the jurors were being sworn, but the witness did swear on one.
