Definition
Packing a jury is the improper or corrupt manipulation of the jury selection process with the intent to seat jurors who are partial to one side. The practice involves deliberately engineering the composition of a jury — through fraudulent means, abuse of the selection or impanelment process, or misuse of peremptory challenges — so that the resulting panel is not impartial. The aim is to predetermine or substantially influence the verdict before trial begins.
Jury packing is distinct from legitimate trial strategy. Lawyers routinely shape jury composition through voir dire, peremptory challenges, and challenges for cause. What distinguishes packing is corrupt intent combined with improper means: bribery, fraud, collusion with court officers, or systematic exclusion of jurors on constitutionally impermissible grounds.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): To "pack" something — a committee, a court, a room — means to fill it with people who are already sympathetic to a particular outcome, often through manipulation of an appointment or selection process.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "To pack a jury" is explicitly listed as a colloquial phrase meaning to select jurors with a view to a corrupt verdict; to fill a jury with persons of a particular bias.
The common and legal meanings are unusually well aligned here. The gap worth noting is one of legal consequence rather than definition: in ordinary speech, "packing" is used loosely across many contexts. In law, it carries specific implications for criminal liability, mistrial, and the constitutional right to an impartial jury. A researcher encountering the phrase in a historical source should not assume it merely describes zealous jury selection — the term in legal usage almost always implies fraud or corruption, not aggressive but lawful advocacy.
---
Common Confusion
Packing a jury is frequently confused with vigorous but lawful use of peremptory challenges or sophisticated voir dire strategy. The line matters: skilled jury selection, even when calculated and aggressive, is not packing. Packing requires corrupt means — bribery of jury commissioners, fraudulent manipulation of jury lists, or similarly improper interference with the selection mechanism itself.
It is also sometimes conflated with jury tampering, which occurs after impanelment and targets sitting jurors through bribery, threats, or improper communication. Jury packing is a pre-impanelment wrong; jury tampering is a post-impanelment wrong. Both corrupt the jury process, but they arise at different stages and historically received different treatment in the sources.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The phrase appears infrequently in modern legal opinions because the conduct it describes is typically prosecuted under broader statutes — obstruction of justice, bribery, or civil rights violations — rather than under a discrete "jury packing" charge. Researchers working in historical sources will encounter the term far more often than those working in modern case law.
In 19th- and early 20th-century sources, jury packing frequently appears in the context of racial exclusion from juries, particularly in the post-Reconstruction South. What was sometimes described euphemistically as "selection practices" in official records was documented as jury packing by civil rights advocates and dissenting jurists. Researchers examining that period should approach jury composition discussions with this framing in mind.
The constitutional dimension is important for corpus navigation. Modern doctrine governing discriminatory jury selection runs through the Equal Protection Clause — Batson and its progeny — rather than through common-law jury packing doctrine. A researcher tracing the legal history of impartial jury rights must move between the historical packing concept and the modern constitutional framework, which developed along a separate doctrinal track.
Bouvier's citation to 12 Conn. 289 (State v. Election, 1838) places the term in early American legal usage and signals that courts recognized the concept as a cognizable wrong well before federal constitutional doctrine developed around it.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines the term economically: "Improperly and corruptly selecting a jury to be sworn and impanelled for the trial of a cause," with a citation to 12 Conn. 289. The entry is brief but precise — it correctly centers corrupt intent ("improperly and corruptly") and ties the wrong to the selection and impanelment stage.
Bouvier does not distinguish between civil and criminal jury packing, nor does he address what remedies follow — mistrial, new trial, or criminal prosecution of the offending party. For those questions, researchers must look beyond the dictionary to treatises and case law. Historical dictionaries uniformly treat the term as self-evidently wrongful rather than analytically complex, which reflects how the concept was understood: less a technical legal doctrine than a recognized form of fraud on the court.
---
Jurisdictional Note
While the underlying constitutional right to an impartial jury applies across federal and state courts, the specific mechanisms for challenging jury composition — and the remedies available — vary by jurisdiction. Some states have addressed jury packing conduct through obstruction or election-fraud statutes; others have handled it through inherent judicial authority to order new trials. Researchers should not assume a unified statutory framework.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia — Mistrial and Hung Jury (criminal_212)
---