4.5-7 Tampering with a Juror -- § 53a-154
Revised to December 1, 2007
The defendant is charged [in count ___] with tampering with a juror. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:
a person is guilty of tampering with a juror if (he/she) influences any juror in relation to any official proceeding to or for which such juror has been drawn, summoned or sworn.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Element 1 - Communication
The first element is that the defendant communicated with <insert name of juror>.
Element 2 - With juror
The second element is that, at the time of the communication, <insert name of juror> was then a juror. A "juror" is any person who has been drawn or summoned to serve or act as a juror in any court.
Element 3 - Intent to influence
The third element is that the defendant's communication influenced the juror in relation to the proceeding1 in which <insert name of juror> was a juror.
Element 4 - Unauthorized
The fourth element is that the communication by the defendant with the juror was not authorized by law.2
In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant communicated with <insert name of juror>, 2) <insert name of juror> was a juror at the time of the communication, 3) the defendant influenced <insert name of juror> in relation to the proceeding which (he/she) was a juror, and 4) the communication was not authorized by law.
If you unanimously find that the state
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of
tampering with a juror, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On the other
hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not
1 General Statutes § 53a-146 (1). The statutory definition of "official proceeding" includes many proceedings that would not be heard by a jury, so reading the entire definition is not necessary.
2 This element, while not derived from
the statutory language, is inserted to distinguish criminal conduct from conduct
that might be constitutionally protected.