Slashdot Mirror
Internet-Caused Mistrials Are On the Rise
The NYTimes is running a tip-of-the-iceberg story about how the age of Google is resulting in more mistrials as the traditional rules of evidence, honed over many centuries, collide with the always-on Internet. Especially when jurors carry the always-on Internet in their pockets. (We discussed one such case recently.) "The use of BlackBerrys and iPhones by jurors gathering and sending out information about cases is wreaking havoc on trials around the country, upending deliberations and infuriating judges. ... Jurors are not supposed to seek information outside of the courtroom. They are required to reach a verdict based on only the facts the judge has decided are admissible, and they are not supposed to see evidence that has been excluded as prejudicial. But now, using their cellphones, they can look up the name of a defendant on the Web or examine an intersection using Google Maps, violating the legal system's complex rules of evidence."
Well, actually jurors can ask questions. I have done it, and it changed the course of the trial. The judge does not have to allow the question though, and in my case, a stern lecture was administered.
Not sure about all states but once you are off parole/probation, your civil rights are returned, and you can then serve on a jury. So making a mistake once does not preclude you from service forever.
All points of time and space are connected.
An iPod could easily have a news podcast on it.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Having served on several juries, a number of misconceptions need to be cleared up: You can ask questions. The judge may not like it, but if you submit it properly, do not discuss it with fellow jurors, it might be allowed. The right question can completely screw things up for the prosecution or defense, so you will not be thanked. Juries violate all sorts of instructions all the time, and outside info is part of the game. Getting outside information puts pressure on the legal system to do things right, and they don't like that. I do not recommend causing a mistrial, but at the same time, a juror cannot be expected to remove their brain will serving. During one trial that I was a juror for, the prosecution put on a police officer who stated something that was patently not true. The freeware public defender did not challenge it. I was faced with a dilemma -- quickly verify my correct knowledge (just in case I remembered wrong) or go with the police testimony, and convict an innocent man.
The overwhelming majority of judges, like the majority of jurors, are savvy enough to understand and deal properly with the ramifications of the information age and how it can impact legal proceedings. But, like some jurors, there are some judges who have not adapted to the information age and fail to control the juries or the attorneys in the cases they hear. Judge Ito was completely ill-equipped to handle the television and celebrity angle of the O.J. criminal trial, so it is no surprise that some judges today are struggling to comprehend and deal with Twitter, Facebook, Google, iPhones, Blackberries, and so forth.
I am not so sure that all of this is a bad thing. I now perceive, for good or for bad, that criminal defense lawyers often have no trouble crossing the line from "guarantee this defendant a fair trial" to "set this defendant free no matter the cost". Yes, I want an aggressive lawyer defending me if I go to trial, but I also want ethical lawyers debating the case before an ethical and informed judge. And if those parties can't be ethical, then I surely hope the jury is smart enough to see the truth and decide accordingly.
From my experience as a juror, the law as it pertains to the case is explained in detail by the judge.
You are free to ask the judge questions if there is any issue that is not clear to you as a juror.
Thats not how it works. Here in Indiana, they give you a multi-page printout with the basic rules of being a juror.
The last 3 pages are a simple checklist of the minimum requirements to find somebody guilty of a certain charge. Of course, the "Simple checklist" states the very high minimums of the said law.
Lawyers and judges are skilled at knowing what is and isn't relevant to a case.
They're also quite skilled at distorting truth and presenting it in a way that manipulates and misleads a jury to get their desired results.
There's the foolish indiscretions of youth, and then there's felonies.
Yes. When a young Barrack Obama, George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton use illegal drugs, that is foolish indiscretions of youth, but when anyone else does it, it's a felony.
That is not entirely true. Jury nullification occurs when a jury makes a decision on a point of law (i.e., that the law itself should not be enforced). Judges have done everything in their power to limit jury nullification, but that power does still exist.
It's not your decision as a juror to decide what laws apply to the case, or what evidence should be presented.
Actually, it is. Jury nullification is a widely-recognized right whereby a jury can disregard not only instructions from the judge, but can also disregard the pertinent statute. This is, in fact, the entire point of the jury trial: not just that you may be judged by your peers, but that the law itself is judged by your peers. This is how the jury trial is a defense against tyranny.
The right of jury nullification has not been confirmed by the US Supreme Court, but it has been confirmed by many appellate courts. On the other hand, most courts have concluded that the defense can be prohibited (and penalized) from instructing a jury about their right to nullification.
Anyhow, point being, juries are quite powerful. They are, in fact, the ones making the decisions in a court of law, even if they are ignorant of this fact.
It's not your decision as a juror to decide what laws apply to the case, or what evidence should be presented.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse." ...except when on a jury? where suddenly I am to have no access to law or fact save only those hand-picked by those who may have ulterior motives? WTF?
"Anything you say [or do] can and will be used against you in a court of law."
I've studied enough law to know that when someone says "X is illegal", there is usually an unmentioned exception. I also know that the judicial system is designed for "may the best argument win", not determination of legal truth and application of moral consequences. I also know that most people are guilty of something, ensuring that all can be controlled (paging Ayn Rand), and want a jury to have the ability to say "enough - set him free".
The defendant's liberty, and perhaps life, is on the line. That defendant could be you or I - let us hope our juries have the wisdom to discover factual truths and judge the law, rather than merely consent to whatever facilitates the prosecutor's political career or the judge's tee time.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
It's all about Jury Nullification. The point of having the "Common Man" compose the jury is to bring "Common Sense" to the law as it is applied in a given community. Of course, "Justice Professionals" have no interest in allowing laymen to exercise any judgment what-so-ever. Casting a verdict in America today is the equivalent to a child deciding between two outfits its mother picked out for them.
I say go with your gut and use all the information at your disposal. The "Letter of the Law" be damned. Jurists are the only component that interfaces with morality in our entire Justice System.
Who are you to decide whether or not you'll abide by that ruling?
Jury nullification applies, I would think. The final check and balance is not the judge, it is the people.
Here is the big problem -- if a juror does independent research to uncover facts about the case, and uses those facts to come to a decision regarding guilt or innocence, the attorneys for the defense and the prosecution have a right and a duty to hear of those facts and either support or debunk them in the courtroom. Furthermore, some forms of evidence, such as hearsay, are not legally admissible. It is the responsibility of the judge to ensure that hearsay is not admitted into the trial and allowing jurors to do their own research prevents the judge from performing his responsibility and thereby ensuring a fair and legal trial.