What Is Jury Sequestration

What Jury Sequestration Generally Is

Jury sequestration, in general terms, refers to the practice of isolating jurors from outside contact and influence during some or all of a trial or deliberations. The underlying idea is that a verdict should rest only on the evidence and arguments presented in court — and that separating jurors from the broader information environment can help protect that goal.

The term itself comes from the concept of setting something apart. When a jury is sequestered, jurors may be restricted from reading news coverage of the case, browsing the internet freely, or discussing the proceedings with people outside the jury. The specific scope and form of sequestration can vary significantly depending on the jurisdiction and the circumstances of the particular case.

It is worth noting that jury sequestration is a relatively unusual measure in most systems. Courts do not impose it routinely. When it does occur, it is often in connection with cases that have attracted significant public attention — though the decision ultimately depends on factors courts weigh in each individual situation.

Why It Is Sometimes Used

The general concern driving jury sequestration is that outside information — particularly news coverage or public commentary about an ongoing case — could reach jurors and affect their impartiality. Courts generally aim to ensure that jurors decide based on what is admitted into evidence, not on what they may have seen, heard, or read elsewhere.

In some situations, the volume or intensity of outside coverage or community discussion around a case may lead a court to consider whether ordinary instructions to jurors (such as admonishments not to follow news about the case) are sufficient, or whether more active separation is warranted. Sequestration is one of the more substantial tools a court may use to address that concern, though it is not the only option available.

The concept connects to broader fair-trial principles. Jurors are generally expected to keep an open mind and decide based solely on properly admitted evidence. For more background on that foundational right, learn about the right to a jury trial.

What It Can Involve

The practical measures associated with jury sequestration vary by jurisdiction and by what a court orders in a specific case. At a general level, sequestration may involve some combination of the following kinds of restrictions, though no single set of measures applies universally:

• Limiting jurors’ access to news coverage related to the case — for example, restricting television, print, radio, or internet news during the period of sequestration.
• Restricting outside communication, such as limiting calls, messages, or contact with family members or others outside the jury, often with court supervision of any permitted contact.
• In some instances, housing jurors separately — for example, at a hotel — rather than allowing them to return home at the end of each court day.
• Court personnel may accompany or monitor jurors during sequestration to help enforce the restrictions that are in place.

Because sequestration can place a significant burden on jurors, courts in many jurisdictions treat it as a measure of last resort rather than a routine step. The specific conditions imposed — and how long they last — generally reflect what a court determines is necessary given the particular facts of the case.

Jury Sequestration vs. a Witness Sequestration Order

The term “sequestration” appears in two distinct contexts in trial proceedings, and it is easy to conflate them because they share the same word. Understanding the difference matters:

• Jury sequestration — discussed throughout this page — concerns isolating the jury from outside contact and influence during a trial or deliberations, so that jurors decide only on the evidence presented in court.
• A witness sequestration order— a separate concept — generally concerns keeping witnesses out of the courtroom while other witnesses are testifying, so that one witness does not hear another’s testimony before giving their own.

These two types of sequestration serve different purposes and operate differently. One addresses the jury’s exposure to outside information; the other addresses witnesses’ exposure to courtroom testimony. For more on the witness-side concept, see the explainer on witness sequestration orders.

How It Connects to Other Fair-Trial Measures

Jury sequestration is one of several tools courts may use in connection with concerns about trial fairness, particularly around outside influence or publicity. It does not operate in isolation. Courts in many jurisdictions have a range of options available, and how those tools are combined — or whether any of them are used at all — depends on the circumstances of each case.

Some related concepts worth understanding alongside jury sequestration:

• Gag orders — a court may restrict what parties, attorneys, or others can say publicly about a case, which is a separate mechanism addressing outside commentary at the source rather than through jury isolation. Learn about gag orders.
• Change of venue — in some situations where pretrial publicity is extensive in a particular location, a court may consider moving the trial to a different location as one way of addressing concerns about jury impartiality. Learn about change of venue.
• Juror admonishments — courts routinely instruct jurors throughout a trial not to follow news coverage, discuss the case, or conduct independent research. These instructions exist in virtually every trial; sequestration goes further by actively limiting the environment in which jurors operate.

The relationship among these measures is not fixed. Courts may use one, several, or none of them depending on what the situation presents. Jury sequestration tends to be discussed in cases where other, less burdensome measures are considered insufficient to protect the integrity of the jury’s deliberative process.

Questions to Explore About Jury Sequestration

Jury sequestration raises a number of procedural and practical questions that can vary by jurisdiction and case. Some people find it useful to ask questions like the following when trying to understand how this concept fits into a particular legal situation:

1. Under what circumstances do courts in a given jurisdiction generally consider ordering jury sequestration, and what factors tend to influence that decision?
2. Who has the ability to request that a court consider sequestration, and at what point in the proceedings is that typically raised?
3. If a jury is sequestered, what kinds of restrictions generally apply, and how does the court typically manage permitted contact between jurors and their families or employers?
4. How does the court generally handle juror concerns or hardship claims that arise when sequestration is ordered or extended?
5. If there are concerns about outside influence on a jury before or during a trial, what range of options — apart from full sequestration — have courts in that jurisdiction used to address those concerns?