Is it jury tampering after a misdemeanor DWI trial to let the jury know after a guilty verdict that the defendant has had a prior DWI conviction?

Hasn't the jury been discharged by then? If so, there is no "jury" with which to tamper.

And if it's a guilty verdict, going to the judge for punishment, the jurors are free to remain in the courtroom and discover this information themselves, right?

Isn't this a forum for prosecutors?

no

Sounds like a disgruntled defendant/family member question, that's all.

It does.

Not to tell them is a little-known situation in juris prudence known in the latin as jury pampering.

Exitus only-um

Can it be considered jury tampering for any future jury service since potentially they could get called again and now they would know that a DWI could be a 2nd? I tell juries all the time that the guy had a prior but an experienced defense attorney/former prosecutor cautioned me against it.

There is an ethics rule that governs attorney conduct with persons that might affect future jury service. But telling a discharged jury a fact, i.e. that a given defendant had a prior, would not seem to run afoul of that. After all, we tell them also that they have to decide cases based on what they hear in court, so they are already well aware that there might be other information out there. We have yet another snow day so I don't have my ethics books to see how that rule has been construed or even what rule number it is.

well if this person is on a future jury with the same defendant, who they know had at least two DWI convictions...one for which they found him guilty, wouldn't the proper voir dire unearth this fact so the defendant can strike?

You would think that the old question "Do any of you know Mr. X?" would reveal the fact that a panel member knew him. Sometimes, though, jurors don't snap to it. As a warranty and repairs lawyer, mostly, I think I would prefer prosecutors talking to discharged jurors to be pretty circumspect in talking to them. Ask questions, figure out what was important to them, learn what other jurors might like to hear. When they tell you "we wanted to know whether he had any priors," the more prudent answer might be, "Well, we are only allowed to offer evidence of other offenses under limited circumstances..." and not discuss his other DWI. Read the ethics rule and see what you think.

AP, after all these years, you still crack me up.

And that's a good thing.

imalittlepunchdrunkbecauseivespenttheweekwithourotherbassplayerhereatinvestigatorsschoolinsanantoniohehasbeenbehavingmostly

didyoutrythenewpopcornandsushirestaurantoverbytheAlamo?

Sorry, the ee cummings stuff doesn't account for historical Texas landmarks.