Two ex-football players were convicted of multiple counts of aggravated rape and sexual battery after a jury took just 2 hours to reach a verdict. During Q&A with some jurors after the verdict, it became apparent that video of the actual incident was pivotal. One juror said “as soon as we saw the video we knew exactly who was guilty of what and what we were going to come back with.” The graphic video showed one of the defendants carrying the victim into his dorm, flanked by his co-defendant, along with two other football players awaiting trial. Think of the potency of this imagery. The victim, a cheerleader, was drunk and passed out while the sexual assault occurred. Jurors were “horrified and disgusted” by what they witnessed.
After the verdict, it was revealed that the jury foreman was once a victim of statutory rape, and this was not known to the parties at the time of jury selection. When the foreperson was 16 years old he had a consensual relationship with a 23 year old man. After this juror’s parents found out about it, the 23 year old man was charged with statutory rape. Prosecutors in this case insist the juror’s history did not ultimately affect the jury’s decision to convict. However, one report suggests this juror gave different answers during jury selection than he did at the mistrial hearing. The Judge said these inconsistent statements (lawyers of all stripes love inconsistent statements unless it is their client making them, I mean, allegedly making them) show this juror did not meet the standard required to be a fair and impartial juror.
Did the incident from long ago play a causal role in this conviction? At the mistrial hearing, this juror (call him Juror #9) said he actually opposed the prosecution of the man who he had sex with as a 16 year old. Moreover, he said he had not considered, or even recalled, his own experience as a sex crime victim during jury selection or trial in the Vanderbilt case. So what happened here? Did the attorneys not ask the right questions in voir dire when selecting the jury? Did this juror hold back in revealing this incident from years past because he really wasn’t thinking about this experience? Was he thinking about it but too embarrassed to say anything? Did he want to be on the jury so he could punish these defendants? Unlikely. Did he become foreperson because he revealed he was once a victim of a sex crime and other jurors thought he therefore had special credibility on the topic to lead? Also unlikely. But we will never know exactly what happened, and it begs the question how could this have happened and what can be done to ensure it does not happen in the next trial or any trial of this sort.
A supplemental juror questionnaire is a tool to be distributed to potential jurors upon their arrival to court. The questionnaire is filled out by all prospective jurors, reproduced, and provided to the judge and to all parties. It can be one page it can be 20 (but one page or closer to one page is better). This questionnaire allows jurors, who would otherwise be reluctant to answer such questions candidly if asked in front of strangers, to provide a substantial amount of needed, personal information in an efficient manner while protecting their privacy as much as possible. During jury selection, prospective jurors are asked questions in front of everyone – the Judge, lawyers, and fellow jurors. In high profile cases, such as this Vanderbilt case, even the media may be on hand. What juror wants to talk about a past regrettable chapter in his/her life that wound up in the legal system in front of strangers? A jury questionnaire is perfectly suited to ask the types of personal questions about sexual abuse, etc., because candid responses will occur with privacy maintained.
Whereas the pressure of a courtroom situation might lead a potential juror to provide an inaccurate or incomplete oral response to a voir dire question, the questionnaire provides an opportunity for prospective jurors to think about the questions and their responses, and respond more accurately and completely, especially when coupled with assurances of greater confidentiality.
Many cases appealed on jury selection grounds deal with purported juror misconduct pertaining to a failure to disclose information about pertinent relationships, past experiences, injuries and related information. The use of juror questionnaires may help eliminate many of these appealable issues, thus saving judicial and litigant resources in the long term. It is not clear what would have happened had a jury questionnaire been used in the Vanderbilt case. Maybe Juror #9 would have provided an account of being a victim of statutory rape years ago which could have led the defense to strike him from the jury. If so, the jury’s composition would have changed, and maybe the result would have been different depending on who would have “replaced” Juror #9. We will never know, but we can be confident that there would not have been a mistrial due to a juror failing to disclose very personal yet very pertinent information.