Rule 606 of the Federal Rules of Evidence prohibits a juror from testifying “about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s vote; or any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment.” [0]
Without testimony, how would you make the case for perjury? You can’t force the juror to incriminate themself, nor can you ask the other jurors to incriminate them. There’s no functional way to distinguish between nullification and a deliberated no vote.
> Without testimony, how would you make the case for perjury?
You’re almost certainly going to be asked about your ability to make a decision on the basis of the law, and solely the law, during voir dire. If you say yes and then go on to nullify, you perjured yourself.
I agree that it’s (morally) perjury, but I don’t see how it could be proven in court. The prosecutor can’t compel the individual juror (5th Amendment) or the rest of the jury (Rules of Evidence) to testify. I suppose someone could voluntarily waive their 5A rights and confess but…
"nullifying" means voting "not guilty". There's no evidence to prove that the juror did not just distrust all of the evidence presented, or feel that it didn't rise to the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt.
You'd make the case for perjury, because people who like jury nullification love to talk about it. Chances are they talked about it extensively online using poor opsec.
So long as the juror isn't a complete moron, it won't happen. To get to the point where a juror is convicted of perjury, you need one of the other jurors to turn them in to the judge. Something that can pretty much only happen at the end of the trial (since the jurors are barred from speaking to anyone about the case.)
