THE LEGAL SYSTEM Most don't like pulling jury duty, but some sneak in with agendas

Some people want 15 minutes of fame on a high-profile case.
WASHINGTON POST
NEW YORK -- Help wanted: spend long hours in cloistered circumstances, listening to experts drone on about complex subjects. Pay: minimal. Possible rewards: invasion of privacy and public vilification.
That's the lot of a 21st-century juror in a high-profile trial, as events this week in three criminal cases have shown:
UA lawyer defending alleged murderer Scott Peterson accused a potential juror of concealing her hatred of the defendant. A tipster reported to the defense that the woman had bragged on a weekend bus trip to Reno, Nev., that she would try to become the jury foreperson because she believed Peterson was "guilty as hell" and should "get what's due him."
UMartha Stewart's lawyers challenged the veracity of one of the jurors who convicted her of lying, filing a motion for a new trial. They accused Chappell Hartridge, who could not be reached for comment, of embezzling money from a youth baseball league in the Bronx and concealing an arrest for domestic violence in hopes of profiting from his role as a juror.
UJuror No. 4 in the white-collar theft trial of former Tyco International Ltd. chief executive Dennis Kozlowski became the subject of tabloid headlines -- "Ms. Mistrial" -- last weekend when she appeared to be the lone holdout against a conviction. The jury resumed deliberations, but a mistrial was declared Friday, with the judge citing intense outside pressure still on the juror.
Growing problem
Complaints about jurors and their failure to be forthright during the selection process are not new -- the leading U.S. Supreme Court case on the subject dates from 1984 -- but legal analysts say there is a growing two-part problem with the American jury system. Although the vast majority of Americans don't want to serve on juries for privacy or time commitment reasons, a small and hard-to-spot minority are trying to worm their way onto these panels for less than appropriate reasons, they said.
"There are probably a lot of very good people who are very reluctant to serve on juries, to take that kind of time out of their lives, and then there are some that want their 15 minutes of fame," said Linda A. Foley, a psychology professor at the University of North Florida who studies juries. "You're getting a jury that isn't representative of the population."
And the problem is compounded in the case of complex, hard-fought criminal trials in which the evidence may take weeks or even months to present. Trials that involve allegations of corporate wrongdoing may require lengthy explanations of accounting and board actions, for instance, as they had in the Tyco trial, which has lasted more than five months.
'Stealth jurors'
Yet some people seek out jury service, particularly in high-profile cases, usually for reasons that have little to do with wanting to perform their civic duty. Known to jury consultants as "stealth jurors," these potential panel members may lie to the court to get on a jury either because they hope to profit personally from juror service or because they have some kind of agenda.
"It's everyone from the guy who wants to write a book to the woman who hopes to get a job with one of the companies in the case ... to the person who is angry at the world and is willing to ignore the facts to send a message," said Philip Anthony, chief executive of the trial consulting firm DecisionQuest. "It's a clear distortion of the system and in recent years we've seen more of it."
Stealth jurors have led appeals courts to overturn capital murder convictions in Virginia and California: One juror concealed that she had been married to a prosecution witness; the other failed to mention that her brother had been shot and killed in a manner similar to the killing in the case she was helping to decide.
But jury experts say the trend accelerated during the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson, when some jurors appeared to use the case to send a message of displeasure about the Los Angeles Police Department. Three jurors also combined to write a published book, as did a dismissed member of the group.
The Stewart juror
Hartridge, the Stewart juror, allegedly concealed a 1997 arrest for domestic violence and then was very outspoken about the case in media interviews after Stewart was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction and lying about her personal stock sales. Other jurors said they were surprised by Hartridge's public comments that the conviction was a "victory for the little guy" because the issue was not a focus of deliberations.
At the same time, the Internet makes it easier for lawyers and the media to dredge up information about potential, current and past jurors. Hartridge's alleged legal troubles came to light in a computer search after a tipster e-mailed Stewart's attorney. Some New York media outlets published the Tyco juror's name, visited her apartment building and reported on her tipping habits.