The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that a person accused of a crime has the right to be tried by an “impartial” jury.
It naturally follows from that same constitutional guarantee that the prosecution has a right to try a case in front of a jury that is not predisposed to acquit the defendant.
It’s not clear, from this week’s mistrial in the case of Hinds County District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith, whether one of the 12 jurors was predisposed to acquit or convict Smith of allegedly hindering the prosecution of a criminal defendant.
According to a note, however, the jury passed to presiding Judge Larry Roberts, one of the jurors was tainted by previous knowledge and a previously formed opinion of Smith. It was that revelation that prompted the judge to grant a mistrial — thus wasting 2½ weeks of people’s time and taxpayers’ money. A retrial of Smith has been set for June.
Although it’s possible that this juror misunderstood the questions posed to her during jury selection in this high-profile case, it’s also possible that she intentionally lied.
If she did the latter, she should be prosecuted for it, either on charges of perjury or contempt of court. That’s the only way to send the message to the public that sitting on a jury is serious business, and that intentional deception — whether designed to get off a jury or on it — cannot be tolerated.
Too often in the criminal justice system, there are no personal consequences for lying under oath. Perjury prosecutions are rare. As a result, not just jurors but witnesses, too, get the message that perjury is no big deal.
The only way to change that thinking is to make examples of those whose deception is easily provable. If this is one of those cases, then either the judge should hold the juror in contempt, or Attorney General Jim Hood, who pushed the prosecution of Smith and whose office has been at odds for some time with the Hinds County DA, should bring perjury charges against her.
