The problem with a mistrial is that just because the trigger for a mistrial is one juror being attempted to be bribed, congratulations, you’ve now created a precedent for “If you want a mistrial, hire a goon unconnected to you to go drop some cash on a juror’s doorstep.”
Can you imagine what a certain Convicted Felon Twice Indited Ex-President would do with such a ruling? Remember, his lawyers (and presumably the CFTIEP himself) knew who the jurors were, it was only hidden from the public. Having someone drop a bag of what would be pocket change for an actual billionaire on someone’s doorstep to force a mistrial would be just his style, even it that represented all of his accessible cash. Delay, delay, delay.
Any jury can be compromised. Most people, even if offered six figures, would realize that the personal legal risk, the destruction of their integrity, the corruption of justice, and all the other add-ons that come free with being the juror who threw a trial for some cash just aren’t worth it.
And, of course, once the trial is done, there is the worry that there may be a second knock, wanting their money back, or the permanent silence of a potential witness.
Exactly. As long as you could avoid being conclusively tied to the goon you could avoid accountability indefinitely that way. The prosecution doesn’t want all that work to go to waste if they think they’ve still got a good chance of winning; their time and resources are not infinite.
In a case like this is there any provision for follow-up; or would the lie have to be detected more or less immediately?
I suspect that many fewer people are capable of remaining completely silent(literally and in terms of their financial paperwork footprint) about a sudden $120k+ windfall than are capable of telling a lie in the immediate term; but that’s obviously only relevant if there’s a “last year you told a judge that you definitely hadn’t been bribed; but you declared a gift/suddenly bought a vacation home; please discuss” trigger that kicks in; if it doesn’t then being loud about it wouldn’t go any further than a potential chat with the IRS, if you didn’t declare the gift appropriately.
I’m a bad person. I’d take the money, then report to the judge that I’d been given $20,000 to acquit, with the promise of more (and I’m kind of insulted their offer was so low, your honor). Turn in 20, be excused from the jury, and don’t worry about my mortgage so much for a few years.
Moral dilemma aside, who here would feel totally safe having accepted (in whole or in part) a payment from criminals who clearly know who you are and where you live and expect something in return for that payment? Secretly keeping most of the money and reporting the bribe seems sure to piss off some bad folks even more than being totally honest about the bribe would.
But I do think there’s a strong case to be made that the government could temporarily seize the money for evidence but eventually return it to the honest juror if they can’t find and convict the people responsible for the bribe. Civil forfeiture shouldn’t be a thing, and I don’t see where else the money should go.
My knowledge of witness tampering is purely theoretical and I’d say that even if it weren’t true; but I suspect that the rules change when you are illegally asking someone to do something illegal for you and you can’t exactly depend on contract law for enforcement or tell the juror to run your boss through LexisNexis Risk Solutions if they doubt that he’s good for the bribe you are being offered.
An upfront gift both taps into the psychology of reciprocity and creates a strong implication of your ability and willingness to bring resources to bear. It is also the politest and least threatening way of reminding the target that someone willing to drop six figures on witness tampering may believe that they are owed for an unfulfilled obligation if the target doesn’t cooperate. A bullet or horse head is, of course, cheaper but really gets you off on the wrong foot if the objective is to keep the ‘charm’ in ‘charm offensive’.
Certainly not a risk-free strategy; but it has its advantages vs. just making unbacked promises; especially when you’ve pocketed $40 million; and a few hundred thousand probably looks pretty minor compared to potential prison time.
Perhaps Law Society rules should require that the defence attorneys resign in incidences of juror (and witness) tampering. I suppose even that plays into the accused hands given the delay involved.
Pretty much anything that delays the trial works to the benefit of the accused as long as the accused isn’t hurting for cash and isn’t waiting in prison. “Justice delayed is justice denied” and all that. It’s why TFG’s legal team has been burning millions of dollars trying all manner of delay tactics on his various cases.
Yes, particularly in Canada with with the Jordan decision setting strict limits on the time to complete a trial after charges are laid. Nonetheless, jury (or witness) tampering is a serious perversion of justice and perhaps the clock should be reset. I’m also keeping in mind that tampering may be conducted by third parties with a strong interest in keeping the accused and witnesses quiet.
If there are particular jurors who show they might be compromised once they are empaneled, can they be dismissed and replaced by alternates?
You lost me here. Why would the judge or any appellate judge take this seriously? “Counselor, you should have advised your clients not to tamper with the jury.”
Yes, but that still might result in a mistrial, if the judge feels the whole trial has been compromised. Once a verdict is rendered, though, that’s it. There’s no take-backesies for an acquittal.
Can they, though? My understanding of appeals is that their basis is somewhat limited. If they know about an issue now, but don’t bring it up, they can’t necessarily use it later, even if changes things. (Having a bad lawyer isn’t a basis for an appeal, usually.)
I can easily imagine some jurors acting out of a sense of self-preservation…
