Editing Jury (section)

== Integrity ==
For juries to fulfill their role of analyzing the facts of the case, there are strict rules about their use of information during the trial. Juries are often instructed to avoid learning about the case from any source other than the trial (for example from [[Mass media|media]] or the Internet) and not to conduct their own investigations (such as independently visiting a [[crime scene]]). Parties to the case, lawyers, and witnesses are not allowed to speak with a member of the jury. Doing these things may constitute [[reversible error]]. Rarely, such as in very high-profile cases, the court may order a jury [[Jury sequestration|sequestered]] for the deliberation phase or for the entire trial.

Jurors are generally required to keep their deliberations in [[Confidentiality|strict confidence]] during the trial and deliberations, and in some jurisdictions even after a verdict is rendered. In Canadian and [[English law]], the jury's deliberations must never be disclosed outside the jury, even years after the case; to repeat parts of the trial or verdict is considered to be [[contempt of court]], a criminal offense. In the United States, confidentiality is usually only required until a verdict has been reached, and jurors have sometimes made remarks that called into question whether a verdict was properly reached. In Australia, academics are permitted to scrutinize the jury process only after obtaining a certificate or approval from the Attorney-General.

Because of the importance of preventing [[undue influence]] on a jury, [[embracery]], [[jury intimidation]] or [[jury tampering]] (like [[witness tampering]]) is a serious crime, whether attempted through [[bribery]], [[Assault (tort)|threat of violence]], or other means.<ref name=":1" /> At various points in history, when threats to jurors became pervasive, the right to jury trial has been revoked, such as during the 1880s in Ireland.<ref name=":1" />

Jurors themselves can also be held liable if they deliberately compromise their impartiality. Depending on local law, if a juror takes a bribe, the verdict may be overturned and the juror may be fined or imprisoned.<ref name=":1" />

Robert Burns and Alexander Hamilton argued that jurors were the least likely decision-makers to be corrupted when compared to judges and all the political branches.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Burns |first=Robert P. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/243845474 |title=The death of the American trial |date=2009 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-08126-7 |location=Chicago |pages=116-118 |oclc=243845474}}</ref>

===Sentencing disparities===
Jurors, like most individuals, are not free from holding social and cognitive [[List of cognitive biases|biases]], which could result in [[sentencing disparities]]. People may negatively judge individuals who do not adhere to established [[Norm (social)|social norms]] (e.g., an individual's dress sense) or do not meet societal standards of success. Although these biases tend to influence jurors' individual decisions during a trial,<ref name="Wrightsman">Wrightsman, L., Nietzel, M. T., & Fortune, W. H. (1998). Psychology and the legal system (4th edition). Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole.</ref> while working as part of a group (i.e., jury), these biases are typically controlled.<ref name="Kerr">Kerr, N. L., & Huang, J. Y. (1986). How much difference does one juror make in jury deliberation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 325–343.</ref> Groups tend to exert buffering effects that allow jurors to disregard their initial personal biases when forming a credible group decision. Analysis of over a quarter million felony cases in USA found for grand juries no [[statistical significance]] for [[Taste-based discrimination|taste-based]] or [[Statistical discrimination (economics)|statistical discrimination]] between black and white defendants.<ref>[https://conference.nber.org/conf_papers/f189536.pdf Hoekstra, Mark, Suhyeon Oh, and Meradee Tangvatcharapong. "Are American juries racially discriminatory? Evidence from over a quarter million felony grand jury cases." (2023). NBER]</ref> 
Other studies found significant [[sentencing disparities]] related to [[in-group favoritism]].<ref name="z352">{{cite web | title=Diversity and Fairness in the Jury System | page=165 | year=2007 | publisher=Ministry of Justice (United Kingdom) Research Unit | url=https://www.ucl.ac.uk/judicial-institute/sites/judicial-institute/files/diversity-fairness-in-the-jury-system.pdf | access-date=19 April 2025}}</ref>

Robert Burns cites Plato in arguing that gaining power and ruling wisely are different skillsets, making the case for a jury of those who have not sought power to create better outcomes than trials left up to judges.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Burns |first=Robert P. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/243845474 |title=The death of the American trial |date=2009 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-08126-7 |location=Chicago |pages=174 |oclc=243845474}}</ref> Burns further argues that interest groups have increasing influence over political branches, including judges, and that the jury was designed to resist the new Gilded Age-level concentration of power.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Burns |first=Robert P. |title=The death of the American trial |date=2009 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-08126-7 |location=Chicago |pages=116}}</ref> He also cites Blackstone who argued that it was against human nature for the few (judges) to be attentive to the needs of the many.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Burns |first=Robert P. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/243845474 |title=The death of the American trial |date=2009 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-08126-7 |location=Chicago |pages=120 |oclc=243845474}}</ref> He also argues the legitimacy of the judiciary increases with a more robust jury.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Burns |first=Robert P. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/243845474 |title=The death of the American trial |date=2009 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-08126-7 |location=Chicago |pages=118 |oclc=243845474}}</ref> The trial also provides the public with insight into the conduct of judges and the parties involved, further encouraging good behavior.<ref name=":5" /> Unlike in other major institutions that run on a more bureaucratic utilitarian logic, the jury checks this way of thinking by bringing common-sense and moral perspectives to bear.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Burns |first=Robert P. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/243845474 |title=The death of the American trial |date=2009 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-08126-7 |location=Chicago |pages=126-127 |oclc=243845474}}</ref> Burns contrasts the focus on fact for a jury with other political processes like congressional forums, which he argues are undisciplined forums for overbroad abstractions.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Burns |first=Robert P. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/243845474 |title=The death of the American trial |date=2009 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-08126-7 |location=Chicago |pages=117, 133 |oclc=243845474}}</ref> Lastly, Burns argues the jury is a vote of confidence for democracy as the most democratic institution (at least in America) and one that demonstrates that it is possible to find common ground on difficult questions, especially when decisions must be unanimous.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Burns |first=Robert P. |title=The death of the American trial |date=2009 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-08126-7 |location=Chicago |pages=117-118}}</ref>