Can someone use good deeds to "bribe" their way to innocence?

Question

Question inspired by Yakuza Judgement.

Carl, the huge rich criminal, is on trial for a murder he obviously committed. But during the trial, he looks at the 12 jurors and says

"if you let me go, I will donate 100 million dollars to the Red Cross. What's more important: me being in jail, or 100 million dollars to charity?"

Clearly, at least one of the jurors might resonate with this point, and refuse to say Carl is guilty. So what is supposed to happen in this case?

Btw, please don't focus on the "letter" of my question, but instead, focus on the "intent" of my question. Maybe Carl's money gets impounded, I don't know. The point is, Carl's arrest does more harm to the world than actually letting him be free.

P.S.: For those curious, in the actual game: Carl is on the brink of curing Alzheimer's, but commits a crime. But what if Carl brings up the fact that putting him in jail means millions of people suffer/die from Alzheimer's?

Edit: to be clear, no actual bribery is going on. Carl isn't saying "I'll give you $100 if you let me free". What's happening is Carl has so much good he can do for humanity (e.g. donate millions to charity, take care of children, cure important diseases, etc.), which he can't do if he were in jail. At which point, many jurors might consider that the world would be better off with Carl out of jail (so he could do good for the world) than in jail (solely so that Carl could suffer).

Answer 1

Carl may not do this, as he would be prohibited from making this argument at trial.

At trial, evidence must be relevant, meaning that it makes a fact of consequence more or less likely to be true. Because the trial is meant to determine whether Carl is or is not guilty, his promises of future philanthropy have no bearing on the matter. And even if they somehow did, Carl still would not be able to tell the jury about them because they would be blocked under Rule 403, which excludes evidence because its probative value is substantially outweighed by its risk of biasing or confusing the jury.

If Carl attempts to make these statements anyway, he risks a mistrial, which means he has to start over with with a new jury.

In some jurisdictions, Carl may, however, be permitted to make this argument during the sentencing phase, where the court can properly consider the societal effects of whatever punishment it imposes. At this point, though, it's obviously a little late for Carl, as it presumes he has been convicted.

Answer 2

But during the trial, he looks at the 12 jurors and says

This is where the main flaw lies in your plan. Carl cannot legally make that proposition / claim to the jury. It is true that he could suddenly blurt out the proposal, but the judge would gavel him down and instruct the jury to ignore the outburst. A defendant is only allowed to make certain kinds of claims in a specific fashion – he can offer evidence bearing on the question of guilt.

There is an industry of jury research that asks "what effect does X have on jury outcomes", based on mock trials. I am fairly certain that nobody has experimentally tested the effect of such an outburst that is so egregiously outside of the law, so I think the strongest claim we can make is that there is a slight chance that one juror might be swayed to the point of voting to acquit, and a greater chance that jurors would be annoyed at his misbehavior so that the convict him quicker. This is not because of the law, it's because of the foibles of individual ethics.

The judge would attempt to unring the bell by instructing the jurors to completely ignore the outburst.

Answer 3

canada

This seriously risks a mistrial.

Where inadmissible evidence is placed before the jury and the trial judge is of the view that no corrective instruction can cure the introduction of inadmissible evidence, the trial judge has the discretion to declare a mistrial.

R. v. Hood, 2011 ONSC 1390 at para. 7

Answer 4

Of course

Bribery and corruption are part of the human condition - that's why they are crimes in their own right. If Carl can bribe the jury or the judge and thereby obtain an acquittal, and never get caught for doing this, then he's a free man.

However, if it ever emerges that this happened then Carl gets arrested again and tried again for the murder (and also the bribery). This is not double jeopardy because Carl's liberty was never at hazard in the first trial because of the bribe.

What if the jury just likes Carl?

In this scenario, Carl does nothing illegal to the jury, he's just a really likable guy. Well, this isn't how juries are meant to behave but jury nullification is a thing.

This is an argument used against both the death penalty and minimum mandatory sentences. A jury faced with a defendant who they know will receive a punishment greater than they feel is "fair" may choose to acquit even in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt.