Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 750 / Act 328 of 1931
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.120a (2026)

Willfully attempting to influence juror by intimidation or other improper means; retaliating against person for having performed duties as juror; penalties.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE


Act 328 of 1931


750.120a Willfully attempting to influence juror by intimidation or other improper means; retaliating against person for having performed duties as juror; penalties.

Sec. 120a.

    (1) A person who willfully attempts to influence the decision of a juror in any case by argument or persuasion, other than as part of the proceedings in open court in the trial of the case, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both.

    (2) A person who willfully attempts to influence the decision of a juror in any case by intimidation, other than as part of the proceedings in open court in the trial of the case, is guilty of a crime as follows:

    (a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

    (b) If the intimidation is committed in a criminal case for which the maximum term of imprisonment for the violation is more than 10 years, or the violation is punishable by imprisonment for life or any term of years, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both.

    (c) If the intimidation involved committing or attempting to commit a crime or a threat to kill or injure any person or to cause property damage, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $25,000.00, or both.

    (3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not prohibit any deliberating juror from attempting to influence other members of the same jury by any proper means.

    (4) A person who retaliates, attempts to retaliate, or threatens to retaliate against another person for having performed his or her duties as a juror is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both. As used in this subsection, "retaliate" means any of the following:

    (a) Committing or attempting to commit a crime against any person.

    (b) Threatening to kill or injure any person or threatening to cause property damage.

    (5) This section does not prohibit a person from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law including any violation of law arising out of the same transaction as the violation of this section.

    (6) The court may order a term of imprisonment imposed for violating subsection (2) or (4) to be served consecutively to a term of imprisonment imposed for any other violation of law including any violation of law arising out of the same transaction as the violation of this section.

History: Add. 1955, Act 88, Eff. Oct. 14, 1955 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 450, Eff. Mar. 28, 2001 ;-- Am. 2003, Act 280, Imd. Eff. Jan. 8, 2004

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: People of Michigan v. Keith Eric Wood, 928 N.W.2d 267 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People of Michigan v. Keith Eric Wood, 928 N.W.2d 267 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 88× “It would be inconsistent with this shared purpose to read one as applicable to anyone summoned for jury duty, and the other as applicable only to those chosen from the pool of summoned jurors and sworn to serve on a jury.”
People v. Davis, 290 N.W.2d 366 (Mich. 1980). “319 (bribery); MCL 750.120a, 750.120b; MSA 28.315(1), 28.”
People of Michigan v. Keith Eric Wood (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 15× “I conclude that the jury-tampering statute, MCL 750.120a, is simply not implicated under the circumstances presented in this case.”
People of Michigan v. David John Slough (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “” With this information, Detective Byrd obtained a warrant to search defendant’s residence for evidence of jury tampering in violation of MCL 750.120a. The warrant extended to “[t]he residence, property, all vehicles, and out-buildings” located at the address and described the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.120a(1) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Keith Eric Wood, 928 N.W.2d 267 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “It would be inconsistent with this shared purpose to read one as applicable to anyone summoned for jury duty, and the other as applicable only to those chosen from the pool of summoned jurors and sworn to serve on a jury.”
People of Michigan v. Keith Eric Wood (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “I conclude that the jury-tampering statute, MCL 750.120a, is simply not implicated under the circumstances presented in this case.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.120a(3) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Keith Eric Wood, 928 N.W.2d 267 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “It would be inconsistent with this shared purpose to read one as applicable to anyone summoned for jury duty, and the other as applicable only to those chosen from the pool of summoned jurors and sworn to serve on a jury.”
People of Michigan v. Keith Eric Wood (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “I conclude that the jury-tampering statute, MCL 750.120a, is simply not implicated under the circumstances presented in this case.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.