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.
