Jury Secrecy In 12 Angry Men

Once the jury retire to the jury room to consider their verdict, the jurors are prohibited from communicating with anyone apart from the judge or an assigned court official. This goes on until the verdict has been delivered. Under s.8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, they are also forbidden from revealing information gathered during their deliberations. A breach of this section would amount to a criminal offence. It is argued that jury secrecy ensures freedom of discussion in the jury room, protects jurors from outside influences and from harassment and ensures the finality of the verdict. Without secrecy, citizens may be hesitant to serve as jurors. The arguments against secrecy include the fact that juries would be made more accountable, the reliability of convictions would be easier to inquire into and injustices would be easier to rectify, it will paint a clearer picture on where reform is required, it could educate the public as well as ensure each juror’s freedom of expression. A case that drew attention to the issue of jury secrecy would be the House of Lords’ case of R v Mirza where a juror writes to the court, after the trial, expressing their concern with how the verdict was reached. There was a suggestion that some of the jurors could be racist. The House of Lords took
Due to numerous cases of jury misconduct being brought to light, serious questions about jury trials are being augmented. Jury misconduct can be explained as an infringement of the law of the court by any member of the jury, either while a court case is underway or after a verdict is out. To an extent, jury misconduct is compromising the public’s confidence in the jury system. This could be due to revelations of numerous internal and external factors such as biasness, social media influence, contempt of court and jury