write a response:

Being a juror is a heavy burden that carries serious accountability for ensuring justice by being unbiased and logical in every judgment based on the evidence in court. In the case in point, where the prosecutor says that the defendant has some previous arrest record involving child molestation and the judge has clearly indicated that this information is excluded in her ruling to ensure that there is no biased testimony, the ethical way is obvious. As a juror, I should not give in to this knowledge and say what happened to the court straight away. Importantly, impartiality is the essence of a fair trial, and both mindful and unconscious prejudice cannot be permissible among the jurors, as it depends upon the defendant having the constitutional right to due process (Minow, 1997). The lack of attention to the situation would breach the instructions of the judges and jeopardize the integrity of the judicial process, since the quality of a trial would be determined by whether the jurors can focus on fair, admissible evidence.

The prosecutors are also ethically problematic. Model Rule 3.8 imposes an additional responsibility upon the prosecutor to represent not just as an advocate but as a minister of justice that allows the accused to have a fair trial (American Bar Association [ABA], 2020a). Disclosure of information that is unacceptable, even during a personal communication, compromises the impartiality of the case and destroys the confidence of the jurors as well as the public in the justice system. Moreover, Model Rule 2.3 forbids the conduct by which one expresses bias or prejudice or the conduct that may misuse the case result, otherwise (ABA, 2020b). This negligence in ensuring the confidentiality of information, whether intentional or unintentional, by the prosecutors shows that they lack professionalism and underscores the value of keeping things to oneself in all scenarios, especially when the jury is present.

The jurors would report this to the judge or bailiff privately because, in their view, this is morally and legally the correct action to take. The Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission (n.d.) stresses that ethical standards have to be observed by all court officers, including the jurors, and that any action that can result in the impossibility of proving the justice of the trial should be reported. The integrity, transparency, and respect for the judicial process are proven by reporting the incident. It also enables the judge to either conclude that my skills of staying unbiased have been impaired or consider a secondary measure, which will be to substitute me with a substitute juror. Speaking up would be against my oath of being a juror and compromise the validity of a court decision.

Besides, the ethical requirements go beyond the statutory duties to moral responsibility. According to Heafey (n.d.), the actions of all the people in the justice system, especially the lawyers, must comply with professional codes but must be guided by moral principles that demonstrate honesty and integrity. Likewise, the Markkula Centre for Applied Ethics (n.d.) emphasizes that ethical service to the community requires individual responsibility and practicing fairness even in cases that deem it hard by the situation. Through this, both jurors and prosecutors maintain the trust that the masses have in the justice system and enhance the rule of law.

Kuykendall (2004) also points out that prosecutors are representatives of their communities, and they are given a great power that should be wielded responsibly. Once that trust is violated, whether by accident or otherwise, it can cost the prosecutor's office or the whole legal system the trust that the people place in them. The U.S. Department of Justice (n.d.) also reminds us to remember the fact that justice involves both equalizing the rights of victims and the rights of the defendants to each other; the balance between them is ruined by the presence of bias or inappropriate behaviors. Consequently, the transparency and compliance with ethical interactions are not a luxury; they are a must to maintain justice and provide fair treatment of all parties concerned with the law.

Even though the knowledge of the defendant being arrested before would be an automatic influence on my perception, as a juror, it is my responsibility to intellectually ignore whatever bias that knowledge may impose. According to the impartiality presented by Minow (1997), it is the duty of jurors to see and obey evidence that has been legally introduced and not any extraneous knowledge or presumptions. Morally, because an overheard conversation has been caught, the right thing to do would be to present the conversation at once and clarify that I am capable of being unbiased and objective. This will satisfy my duty as a moral agent as well as a juror who is bound to justice. I hold the ethical and legal trial process that guarantees the protection of the rights of all parties involved by assuming responsibility and being transparent.

Finally, this case shows the close connection between individual integrity and professional ethics within the justice system. Promoting equity and responsibility, which is proposed by Kuykendall (2004) and the Markkula Centre of Applied Ethics (n.d.), helps to avoid not only doing justice but being perceived as doing it. The ability to report the incident and insist on being impartial is not only an act of ethical power but also a civic responsibility. By doing this, I would be doing as per law, professional ethics, and moral conscience, building the base level concept that one should seek justice with honesty, respect, and fairness.