Voir Dire

[copperwindow]

If i belong to the kkk and I get called to jury duty in a case where a jew is being accused for murder, and I lie in voir dire, can I get arrested.

[Mudshark]

I think it’s considered contempt of court.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=289&page=1#11

[Max_Torque]

Potential jurors are given an oath at the beginning of voir dire, that all answers they are about to give will be truthful. Theoretically, if it’s discovered that you violated that oath and that your deception materially affected the outcome of the proceeding, you could be charged with aggravated perjury.

[Cliffy]

Yep. As Max says, you’re on your oath during voir dire, so lying about a material fact is perjury.

–Cliffy

[Roland_Orzabal]

@Cliffy

Yep. As Max says, you’re on your oath during voir dire, so lying about a material fact is perjury.

–Cliffy

But what constitutes a “material fact”? Membership in the KKK is verifiable; were the OP’s hypothetical juror asked during voir dire whether he (for example) had any prejudices that might prevent him from making his decision based solely on the facts of the case, and responded in the negative, I can see that being considered grounds for perjury.

Let’s say, though, that I’m of the opinion that drug laws are immoral, and a proponent of the concept of jury nullification. I’m called to jury duty for the trial of a man charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. During voir dire, I’m asked whether I can decide based on the facts, I reply that I can, and I’m selected for the jury. During deliberations, I hold steadfast on a vote of Not Guilty based solely on my personal beliefs, with no regard given to the evidence presented at trial.

Clearly, in this scenario, I’m just as guilty of lying under oath as our fictional Klansman, but barring me going around publicly crowing about how I’d beaten the system, how would the state go about proving such a thing? (If it makes a difference, assume that I’m not a card-carrying member of whatever the drug-law protestors’ equivalent of the Klan is; at worst I’m a registered Libertarian.) What sort of evidence could be presented?

[Valgard]

@Roland_Orzabal

But what constitutes a “material fact”? Membership in the KKK is verifiable; were the OP’s hypothetical juror asked during voir dire whether he (for example) had any prejudices that might prevent him from making his decision based solely on the facts of the case, and responded in the negative, I can see that being considered grounds for perjury.

Let’s say, though, that I’m of the opinion that drug laws are immoral, and a proponent of the concept of jury nullification. I’m called to jury duty for the trial of a man charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. During voir dire, I’m asked whether I can decide based on the facts, I reply that I can, and I’m selected for the jury. During deliberations, I hold steadfast on a vote of Not Guilty based solely on my personal beliefs, with no regard given to the evidence presented at trial.

Clearly, in this scenario, I’m just as guilty of lying under oath as our fictional Klansman, but barring me going around publicly crowing about how I’d beaten the system, how would the state go about proving such a thing? (If it makes a difference, assume that I’m not a card-carrying member of whatever the drug-law protestors’ equivalent of the Klan is; at worst I’m a registered Libertarian.) What sort of evidence could be presented?

In that case I think it’d be on the rest of the jury to tell the judge that there is a problem. I was a foreman on a federal drug case a while back and there were a couple of people excused from duty based on responses they gave during voir dire. All I can say is that if during our deliberations someone had taken the attitude that in their opinion drug laws are unfair and so they would refuse to consider the evidence I would have notified the judge immediately.

[cainxinth]

@Roland_Orzabal

But what constitutes a “material fact”?

A material fact: A fact that would be important to a reasonable person in deciding whether to engage or not to engage in a particular transaction; an important fact as distinguished from some unimportant or trivial detail. cite

HYPO 1: OP’s hypothetical juror asked during voir dire whether he (for example) had any prejudices that might prevent him from making his decision based solely on the facts of the case

Answer: Membership past or present in an organization espousing prejudicial views is material when asked directly if you hold any prejudical views.

HYPO 2: I’m of the opinion that drug laws are immoral, and a proponent of the concept of jury nullification. I’m called to jury duty for the trial of a man charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. During voir dire, I’m asked whether I can decide based on the facts, I reply that I can, and I’m selected for the jury. During deliberations, I hold steadfast on a vote of Not Guilty based solely on my personal beliefs, with no regard given to the evidence presented at trial.

Answer: Ability to decide on the facts is always material in a voir dire.

Can the guy in hypo 2 be easily caught for breaching his oath? Nope, but it doesn’t mean he didn’t.

[Gfactor]

@Roland_Orzabal

But what constitutes a “material fact”

1. **Cliffy **is not quoting a specifc statute there.

2. The materiality requirement gets interpreted differently in different jurisdictions and different contexts. But it is closer to the evidentiary standard for materiality in most cases.

(a) A person commits perjury when, under oath or affirmation, in a proceeding or in any other matter where by law such oath or affirmation is required, he makes a false statement, material to the issue or point in questions, whether he does not believe to be true.

http://www.rallolaw.com/articles/article04.pdf

Materiality is derived from the relationship between the proposition of the allegedly false statement and the issues in the case…Thus, the crime of perjury is complete when the oath is taken and the false statement is made with the necessary intent."

Id.

Specific to voir dire:

there can be no doubt that a question as to a potential member’s knowledge of a witness is material to an accused’s right to expose potential biases in order to ensure an impartial jury

http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/IVB6.htm

voir dire is critical to the fairness of a court-martial; a defendant’s right to a fair trial is undermined if panel members fail to answer material questions honestly during voir dire

Id.

So if a truthful answer might expose a potential bias, it was material.

[Roland_Orzabal]

That answers my factual question quite well. My thanks to each of you.

Now, if anyone is up for a bit of idle speculation, what would be the probable upshot of the following scenarios following from my hypothetical?

1. Valgard is on the jury with me, and during deliberations, reports my obstinance to the judge as described in his post.

2. Valgard is NOT on the jury with me, and the defendent is acquitted due to my refusal to convict and the desire of the majority of the jury to go home at some point. A couple of the dissenting jurors, however, decide that my actions were wrong, and report my dishonesty to whomever it is that someone would report such things to. Specifically, I’m interested in what, if anything, would be likely to happen to me in this scenario; I know that there is no possibility of affecting the outcome of the original trial.

(In case anyone’s wondering, I have no intention of doing this. I’ve just been idly curious what would happen if somebody actually tried to pull this stunt ever since a smart-aleck “juror” tried something similar during a mock trial I was lawyering in college.)

[copperwindow]

If a member get charged with killing a jew if the state of LA and all of the jury members are part of the kkk, or just don’t lile jews, and none of them mention this in voir dire and they aquit him, does double jeopardy still apply?

[astorian]

@copperwindow

If a member get charged with killing a jew if the state of LA and all of the jury members are part of the kkk, or just don’t lile jews, and none of them mention this in voir dire and they aquit him, does double jeopardy still apply?

Double jeopardy always applies, and an acquittal is never overturned.

If the roles were reverse, and a KKK juror helped convict a Jewish defendant, that would be different, and the conviction COULD be overturned.

[Bricker]

@astorian

Double jeopardy always applies, and an acquittal is never overturned.

As long as the accused was meaningfully in jeopardy in the first place. You can’t bribe the judge, secure an aquittal thereby, and then plead double jeopardy when you are re-tried on the original charge.

[copperwindow]

@Bricker

As long as the accused was meaningfully in jeopardy in the first place. You can’t bribe the judge, secure an aquittal thereby, and then plead double jeopardy when you are re-tried on the original charge.

I saw something like that once on Law and Order, but I try not to believe everything that I see on the tube.