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."

Comments

The Internet will save our judicial system.

[spinninggears]

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.

Re:The Internet will save our judicial system.

[spinninggears]

The defendant claimed he had knowledge of some of the facts of the case because he had seen it on television. The prosecution, through a police officers testimony, claimed that the specific information could not have been in the television report, because TV crews were "kept back". I, however had seen the same report as the defendant, and had the same memory of the evidence as the defendant. The public defender was out of investigative money (in my county they are give a flat amount, if they exhaust it, too bad). I did not violate the judges instructions to not use outside info by retrieving the video on-line, instead I asked a question in writing, that woke up the public defender, who did it instead. At this point, the floodgates were opened, the police began having to retract most of their testimony (which was fabricated). A couple of months later, a judged kicked 2 yrs worth of convictions on a number of people arrested in the same "gang crackdown", citing police misconduct.