All the Rules Jurors Have to Follow—and What Happens If They Don’t

The right to a jury trial is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment, and in most cases trials are conducted with fairness and competence. But the exceptions, when they occur, highlight how even one errant juror can throw a monkey wrench into the justice system, despite strict rules on jury behavior.

In October 2025, the Supreme Court declined to review a Georgia case involving a man accused of murdering two women. The defendant, Stacey Humphreys, was found guilty and sentenced to death by a jury that included Lindsey Chancey, a woman who had previously been the victim of an attempted rape and robbery incident that bore some similarities to Humphreys’s alleged crime.

Chancey swore she could perform her jury duties impartially; her attacker never physically harmed her because she had escaped the building before he entered. But during the final sentencing phase of the trial, she revealed to her fellow jurors that she had in fact been assaulted.

People in the courthouse could hear screaming, sobbing and intimidations from the jury room—one juror took a swing at Chancey and punched a hole in a wall. Nonetheless, the judge let the jury’s death sentence stand. Dissenting from the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “Tragically, the court denies review instead, allowing a death sentence tainted by a single juror’s extraordinary misconduct to stand.”

But on December 15, 2025—just two days before Humphreys’ scheduled execution—the Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole placed an indefinite hold on his exe­cu­tion and post­poned his clemen­cy hear­ing. Two weeks later, a judge issued a stay of execution to allow further consideration of the case.   

In the vast majority of jury trials, jurors are expected to conduct themselves with common courtesy, to pay close attention to the trial proceedings—no reading or talking—and to weigh the evidence presented without prejudice.

Jurors in most courts are required to avoid discussing their cases with people not on the jury, and to ignore sources of information such as newspapers, radio, television and online media, instead focusing on the evidence presented in the courtroom.

Jurors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and elsewhere must “report to the judge any improper behavior by any juror. They also have the duty to inform the judge of any outside communication or improper conduct directed at the jury by any person.”

Additionally, jurors are advised to never visit or inspect the location where a crime or other relevant event occurred. If such an inspection is needed, the judge will allow the entire jury to visit the location as a group, allowing all jurors to have equal access to essential information.

Before a jury begins deliberations, the judge will give instruction to the jurors about the laws and issues relevant to the case and the standard of proof the jurors should apply in making their decision—“beyond a reasonable doubt” in a criminal case or the “preponderance of the evidence” in a civil case.

The judge will also advise the jury that it alone can determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight of evidence, noting that the opening and closing arguments of the lawyers are not considered evidence.

When a juror violates any of the restrictions imposed upon them, they can be replaced by an alternate juror. There are cases in which a juror has been replaced for being intoxicated; sleeping, talking or reading during a trial; accessing outside information or making an unauthorized visit to a crime scene.

In cases where juror misconduct has rendered a fair and impartial trial impossible, the judge may declare a mistrial and can order a new trial. When significant violations of court rules occur—by any juror, attorney, bailiff or outside party—those individuals may be held in contempt of court, a serious crime that can result in hefty fines or imprisonment .

In July 2025, Boston area resident Jessica Leslie—who served on the grand jury investigation into Karen Read, accused of murdering her boyfriend—pleaded guilty to a federal charge of criminal contempt of court for leaking information about the grand jury proceedings.

Leslie—later sentenced to two months home detention and two years of supervised release—disclosed "the names of various witnesses appearing before the grand jury and the substance of their testimony and other evidence presented to the grand jury, all while said information was under seal and not subject to disclosure," according to federal prosecutors.