Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-152 – Bribery of a Juror

Connecticut treats any attempt to buy, sway, or improperly influence a juror with the utmost seriousness. Under § 53a-152, a person commits bribery of a juror by offering, conferring, or agreeing to confer any benefit upon a juror—or someone they believe will be called as a juror in an official proceeding—with the intent to influence how that person votes, decides, or acts as a juror. “Benefit” can mean money, gifts, favors, promises, jobs, or anything of value. The law covers both sitting jurors and prospective jurors during jury selection.

To convict under § 53a-152, prosecutors generally must establish:

1. Target: The person you approached was a juror or prospective juror—or you believed they were or would be one in an official proceeding.
2. Benefit: You offered, conferred, or agreed to confer a benefit (cash, gift, favor, opportunity, promise, etc.).
3. Intent: You did so with the intent to influence the juror’s vote, opinion, decision, or other action in the case.

Intent is the beating heart of this charge. If there’s no intent to affect the juror’s decision, the State’s case is much weaker.

Bribery of a juror is a Class C felony in Connecticut. A Class C felony carries:

• Up to 10 years in prison
• Up to a $10,000 fine
• Possible probation with strict conditions

Because juror bribery strikes at the fairness of the justice system itself, judges and prosecutors treat these cases as high-priority matters.

These charges can come from a surprising range of situations:

• A defendant’s friend quietly offers a juror “gas money” or a gift card to help “keep an open mind.”
• A relative of a party messages a prospective juror on social media during jury selection, promising a favor if the juror “helps out.”
• A business owner offers a job lead, discount, or “future consideration” to a juror who hints they’re on the panel.
• A go-between (someone not involved in the case) tries to pass cash or a benefit to a juror in exchange for a specific verdict.

Important: You don’t have to succeed in influencing anything. The offer or agreement itself—paired with the intent to influence—is enough.

• Tampering with a Witness (§ 53a-151): Targets witnesses, not jurors; no “benefit” required.
• Intimidating a Witness (§ 53a-151a): Involves threats or force against a witness, not jurors.
• Bribe Receiving by a Juror (§ 53a-152a): The juror’s side of the transaction (when a juror solicits or accepts a bribe).
• Attempt/Conspiracy (§ 53a-49 / § 53a-48): Planning or trying to bribe a juror can bring additional exposure even if the plan fails.

• No intent to influence: Maybe the conversation was clumsy or poorly worded, but not a bribe. Friendly gestures or kindness, without intent to affect a verdict, are not bribery.
• No “benefit” within the statute: Casual compliments or social niceties aren’t benefits; even goodwill must be tied to something of value or concrete advantage.
• Mistaken identity or role: The person contacted wasn’t a juror or prospective juror, and there was no reasonable belief they were.
• Ambiguous communications: Texts/DMs without a clear quid pro quo can undercut the State’s theory.
• Suppression issues: Statements, recordings, or digital messages may be excluded if obtained in violation of constitutional or statutory rules.

• No-contact orders: Courts can issue strict orders barring contact with jurors, witnesses, or anyone associated with the panel.
• Digital footprints: Phone logs, DMs, and social media activity are common evidence; preserve your devices and do not delete anything without legal advice.
• Collateral fallout: A felony bribery case can affect employment, licensing, and immigration status; structuring negotiations to avoid admissions of bribery intent is critical.

• Envelope in the parking lot: A supporter slips an envelope with cash to a juror, saying, “We appreciate a fair shake.” Even if the juror reports it immediately, the offer can satisfy the statute.
• “In return, I’ll help you out.” A friend of the accused messages a prospective juror on Instagram with a promise of paid work if the juror votes to acquit—classic benefit-for-verdict request.
• Discounts and favors: A party offers deep discounts at their business or promises to “put in a good word” with a hiring manager, tied to the juror’s decision in the case.

No. Any benefit of value—money, gifts, favors, jobs, discounts, introductions—can qualify.

Politeness isn’t a crime, but the State will argue context and intent. If there’s no intent to influence a verdict, that’s a key defense.

No. The offer or agreement alone, with intent to influence, is enough.

If you believed they were or would be a juror, the statute can still apply. The belief element matters.

Yes. Using a go-between doesn’t shield you. It can also raise conspiracy or attempt exposure.

Absolutely. DMs, texts, and comments are routinely used as evidence.

If a juror solicits or accepts a bribe, that’s a separate crime (Bribe Receiving by a Juror, § 53a-152a).

Avoiding a felony conviction for bribery is paramount—exploring reductions to non-bribery offenses, or building reasonable doubt on the intent element.

Jail is possible for a Class C felony, but outcomes vary widely. Early counsel, tight mitigation, and smart negotiations make a substantial difference.

Stop all communications related to jurors. Preserve your messages and call a lawyer immediately to manage contact restrictions and craft a defense.

A bribery of a juror allegation can escalate quickly and carries serious felony exposure. The sooner we intervene, the more we can do to protect your record, lock down communications, and challenge the State’s proof—especially on intent and whether a true benefit was offered.

📞 Call Allan F. Friedman, Criminal Lawyer, at (203) 357-5555 for a confidential consultation.Or reach me through my secure online contact form, and I’ll respond promptly with a plan tailored to your case.