Jurors with Agendas: A multifaceted problem at trial

By Devon Reiff

This four-part article remains a highly practical guide for trial lawyers navigating juror bias, deception during voir dire, and trial court error in jury selection. While specific cases and rules evolve over time, the core lessons here are durable: identify red flags early, build a clear record, and push for unequivocal assurances of impartiality. This is published for educational purposes and to support discussion of best practices in protecting the integrity of the jury process.

Related Resources

• About Devon Reiff (Trial background and publications)
• Case Results (Selected outcomes and courtroom experience)
• Traumatic Brain Injury (High-stakes trial issues)
• Construction Accidents (Serious injury litigation)
• Vehicle & Pedestrian Accidents (Liability disputes and trial proof)

Part I: The “Stealth” Juror – What exactly does that mean?

Every trial lawyer wants to pick a jury that will decide in favor of his or her client, the first goal must be to pick a jury that will be fair and impartial. Unfortunately, this is often made difficult by: (1) one (or more) so-called “stealth” jurors, who hide their prejudices or personal motivations; or, (2) openly problematic jurors who are not excused “for cause” by the court.

Contrary to the popular belief no one wants to serve on jury duty, there have always been people who not only want to be selected but will even lie (or worse) to avoid being excused either “for cause” or by way of a peremptory challenge. These “stealth” or “rogue” jurors conceal their hidden agendas in order to connive their way onto juries and always pose a threat to improperly influence the outcome of a trial.

There is no rhyme or reason to the behavior of stealth jurors. For this reason, trial attorneys should be vigilant at all times during voir dire and as a trial progresses by paying attention to such things as body language, eye movement, evasive or inconsistent responses, stock answers or lapses of memory, odd behavior, fascination with any aspect of the case, or an unusually strong desire to serve.

For examples of high-stakes cases where credibility and fairness matter, see our work in
traumatic brain injury litigation.

Even after a jury is selected and the trial is in progress (or after a verdict), any indication of the presence of a stealth juror should not be ignored. An attorney should always alert the judge to any potential problem. This is truly a situation where, “if you see something, say something.”

The irreparable harm done by a stealth juror was best expressed by Justice Benjamin Cardozo in Clark v. United States (1933), where he warned that the intrusion of a partisan juror renders the trial sterile from the outset.

Stealth jurors have also been depicted in popular culture and high-profile trials, including The Runaway Jury, the Scott Peterson case, the Martha Stewart prosecution, and numerous appellate decisions addressing juror dishonesty.

A realistic conclusion is that most jurors lie to some extent and every jury panel likely includes at least one juror who has concealed something. Trial counsel vigilance remains the best defense.

Part II: The Mind of the “Stealth” Juror – What motivates them?

Although important, the outcomes of inquiries into alleged stealth jurors are not as instructive as the conduct itself. The range of potential deceptions and motivations is infinite, making awareness of juror behavior critically important.

In 2011, a former juror admitted she lied during voir dire in a high-profile federal tax fraud case, concealing her legal background and criminal history to be “more juror-marketable.” She claimed she deliberated without bias despite the deception.

In another civil case, a juror attempted to bribe the plaintiff’s family in exchange for influencing the verdict, resulting in a mistrial and criminal prosecution. In civil trials involving complex liability narratives, juror bias can be decisive. Explore our construction accident cases, where facts and credibility are often contested.

The Jodi Arias murder trial revealed how a single juror’s concealed opposition to the death penalty altered the sentencing outcome, despite her assurances during voir dire that she could impose such a sentence.

Numerous New York appellate cases demonstrate how juror concealment, even when not motivated by corruption, undermines the jury selection process and deprives counsel of the opportunity to make informed challenges.

Based on extensive appellate authority, legal scholarship, and media coverage, it is clear stealth jurors exist in every jury pool. Their motivations may include bias, embarrassment, ideology, notoriety, or perceived moral obligation.

Part III: When a Prospective Juror’s Impartiality Is Openly in Question

This section addresses situations where a challenge for cause is denied despite clear evidence of bias or equivocation, forcing counsel to expend peremptory challenges or accept a questionable juror.

Appellate courts consistently emphasize that trial courts should err on the side of exclusion when a juror’s impartiality is uncertain. The failure to do so has resulted in numerous reversals.

Cases involving bias related to law enforcement, domestic violence, gun control, homosexuality, and a defendant’s right not to testify demonstrate how juror equivocation requires unequivocal assurances of impartiality.

Where such assurances are not obtained and peremptory challenges are exhausted, the denial of a challenge for cause constitutes reversible error.

These cases underscore the necessity of a complete record and persistent advocacy during jury selection. Many serious injury matters depend on whether a jury accepts a client’s account, medical evidence, and damages proof. See our slip, trip, and fall injuries practice for examples of how liability disputes unfold.

Part IV: Miscellaneous Trial Court Errors During Jury Selection

Even the most vigilant trial lawyer may be undermined by trial court errors during jury selection. Arbitrary limits on voir dire, improper rehabilitation, and failure to follow established standards frequently result in reversals.

Appellate courts have ordered new trials where voir dire was unduly restricted, where parties were excluded from jury selection, or where jurors with clear bias were permitted to serve.

The cumulative effect of such errors wastes judicial resources, undermines confidence in verdicts, and forces parties to relitigate otherwise sound outcomes.

There can be no denial that many prospective jurors lie to some extent. While not all lies matter, those that conceal critical information threaten the integrity of the jury process. Our firm prepares cases as though they may be tried. Review representative outcomes on our
case results page.

Trial lawyers must ask thorough questions, use questionnaires when appropriate, challenge questionable jurors for cause, exhaust peremptory challenges when necessary, and protect the record at every stage.

If a biased juror makes it onto a jury, the result is no better than if the juror lied to get there. Vigilance remains the trial lawyer’s most effective safeguard.

Devon Reiff has been a trial lawyer for over 35 years and has been named to the New York lists of Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers. Connect on LinkedIn