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."
Its just they have adapt these orders to be extremely explicit about the new kinds of communication. Face it, the average juror may not be that sharp and may not realize it until told.
Every juror is searched every day for any electronic device. No cell phones, no Blackberrys, no nothing. If the rules of court allow it, they get pencil and paper. Otherwise, they sit and listen.
This does not preclude someone from going home and looking up information, but it does solve the issue of doing things in court you shouldn't be doing while on a jury.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The internet just makes it easier and faster for morons to display their stupid. In the old days, that same jackass who just had to twitter about the trial he's on would have been knocking back beer in a local bar and going on about the trial.
God help us all.
What?
This is exposing a systemic problem with the court system. The whole thing is dependent on juries knowing exactly what the lawyers for both sides, and the judge, want them to know, and no more. But there's no real way to enforce that, and there never has been.
It is in the interest of both lawyers to have the most ignorant, moldable, and frankly stupid, set of jurors that they can possibly find. Which I guess makes sense because that's certainly "peers" of most criminals...
That's not to say I would go out and look for information in contravention of a judge's instructions (I have jury duty next week and it'd be stupid not to make that clear) but that doesn't mean I think the rules themselves aren't kind of unreasonable. Last I checked I was still allowed an opinion.
Sorry if this comment's a bit disjointed, it's 7:30 AM and I haven't had my shower yet ;)
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
I carried my mobile phone all the time, and used it in the common area to talk to my girlfriend, check my email etc.
/. and The Register, NotAlwaysRight.com and other chod websites, and chatted with some other jurours.
I had access to the internet through a wireless hotspot, and I read
I was told that the case had to be decided upon by the edivence heard in court, and that I wasn't to discuss the case outside of the court room or deliberation room. So I didn't. It was that simple.
It's not a question of the rules needing to be changed, it's the need for people to follow them. If they don't, they tarnish the legal process and the people will lose faith. Trial by Jury will become Trial by Media, and we all know that they are TOTALLY unbias.
As usual, this is an education problem, not a rule problem. As IT folk, you should know that the answer is almsot always "educate the user" not "restrict the user".
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
This can cut both ways. Yes a juror can look up stuff on the Internet and find out things that the judge has not ruled admissible. But on the other hands, judges aren't infallible even if they're honest, sometimes they make mistakes, don't understand things well enough themselves to make a truly informed assessment of potential facts, or in the worst scenarios are lazy, biased or even crooked. So being able to look something up on the Internet could as potentially reveal exculpatory information. Supposedly the legal system is there to "find the truth" but that's really not the case. Its there to find the most probable truth, or in some cases the most convenient truth. And often times nobody really cares what actually happened or who's going to jail. Look at how many cases have been overturned due to DNA evidence. How many innocent people have sat in jail for years and years because the judge or jury or "legal system" in general has refused to review all the evidence, or when new evidence comes to light, review a past conviction. Its darned inconvenient when guilty people turn out later to not be guilty and some prosecutor or judge has to account for the situation. Easier to just stonewall and let the innocent rot.
If I was in a jury, I'd be very interested in the relevant case law.
The problem is that as a member of the jury it isn't your job to look at the case law. You are supposed to be a finder of fact, i.e: did the defendant commit this act. It's up to the judge to review the case law and if he does a piss-poor job of it then the defendant has grounds for appeal.
you can't block people off from information any longer.
Actually if they wanted to they could.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
the Interweb is full of lies and damned lies.
So is the Library. I don't see why I should put any more faith in the written words of an anonymous stranger simply because it is on paper rather than on my screen. Books can be (and often are) just as biased or distorted as anything found on the 'Interweb'.
Because people are not experts on a subject matter.
It's like self diagnosis. If you look up your symptoms you could find that you have a mild cold, You could also discover that you 'have' any number of exotic deadly diseases. It takes a trained doctor to be able to ask the right quests and examine you and narrow it down to the most likely disease.
Lawyers and judges are skilled at knowing what is and isn't relevant to a case, at knowing how to get vital information from an expert. If you've looked up information that has been left out of a case, there may be a reason it's been left out. The defence might have chosen to leave out a piece of evidence you think would prove innocence deliberately because it carries unforeseen implications.
If you look at someone accused of murder and look up that he has previous convictions for violent assault, that would make it seem more likely he was a murderer. However a judge may view that the assault charges were simple drunken brawls but the murder was planned, cold and calculated. The drunken brawls aren't related enough to the present case to justify the impact they'd have on the jury.
It would be nice if there were a mechanism for jurors to request, and obtain, information they believe to be relevant("We are deciding a traffic case, could we get a street map and some pictures of the area in the jury room"); but hitting wikipedia on your phone isn't it.
Even that wouldn't fly. If there was information to be gained that could influence the jurors' judment, then the defense or prosecution should have presented them during the case. The idea of "admissible evidence" is extremely important, and prevents all kinds of abuses that would otherwise occur. So, the jury gets what the judge says they can have, and what the lawyers think is pertinent to their case. Jurors aren't investigators. It isn't their job to actively try to "find the facts", regardless of whether or not the information has been vetted first. They listen, and decide.
That's the fundamental problem here, and that's why I think all the people saying things like "the courts just need to get with the times" are wrong (I know you said you're against the whole internet P.I. thing, I'm just segueing now). I really don't believe this is case of old ways of doing things that have to catch up with modern technology. This is no different then the practice of sequestering in high profile cases where access to the media could influence a juror. The only difference is that, because of the scope of the internet, a trial or a defendent doesn't have to be famous in order to get information with it. If anything, I think the old rules need to be made more rigorous now that it's so much easier for outside influence to affect a juror.
Your argument is perhaps better for suggesting that the burden of evidence to mount a prosecution should be higher for criminal charges.
There are lots of people who cry wolf, but there is also the occasional boy who cries wolf and ends up getting eaten. You could say he deserved to be eaten but that would still leave you with a wolf roaming around that now has a taste for human meat...
Metaphors aside, it's up the lawyers and ultimately the judge on how relevant someone's history is to a trial and if their history would unduly sway the jury. Scumbags are often innocent, habitual liars are occasionally telling the truth. It should be up to the people well versed in the law and trials to weigh up the balance.
I imagine one thing that makes the judge qualified to judge what evidence is permissible is a better understanding of the issues (and case law and history) related to things like the 4th amendment.
It may be a "fact" that drugs were found in the defendant's car. This "fact" may be deemed inadmissible if 4th amendment rights were violated. It is possible that despite this the defendant was indeed guilty. But it is also possible corrupt cops planted the "evidence".
I imagine there are a slew of things like this. So although I would chafe under restrictions preventing me from doing basic research to better understand things related to a particular case, there's no need to disrespect a judge's role here.
A jury of your peers is a jury of people like you and not, say, a group appointed by the government, or only rich people, or just the judge.
That is part of his job. There are facts that would sway the jury via emotion that should not be considered in the case at hand.
The judge has control over the information available to the jury because the jury is only supposed to consider the information that is relevant to the case. Outside information may prejudice the jury against one party or the other. Consider a case where one party has convictions for a different kind of crime many years ago, say marijuana possession. The person is arrested for petty theft. Should convictions for possession be admissible in the current case? That is what the judge decides.
How about a case where a woman is charged with a crime and in the past lost her children to Child Protective Services. Should the fact that her children are in foster care be considered in her current case?
How about a case against someone many believe killed two people and was acquitted? Should that case be introduced? It could cause members of the jury to vote guilty, not for the allegation in the case, but rather for the case he has already been acquitted of.
Who is going to monitor, for how long, and how? And, what exactly is personal gain? What if someone does it to send the defendant to jail because he does not like the defendant? Or, the defendant's wife? Or, tries to get the defendant off for similar reasons? What if one wants to just tarnish the record of one of the attorneys?
One thing to keep in mind is that most people are terrible at determining what is relevant to making a decision and, as a result, make bad decisions.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Liberal application of 30 or 90 day contempt charges would fix this pretty quickly.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
The jury isn't the trier of law, that's the judge's job. The jury is the trier of fact. Any application of case law independently by a juror, wherever they derived the knowledge and however correct it is, would be misconduct. The jury is to determine the facts, not to apply their own understanding of the law. This is important, because the judge articulates and applies the law, and that articulation is subject to review on appeal. A silent, unexplained application of law by a juror (and, a fortiori, multiple of them by different jurors) cannot be effectively reviewed on appeal because no one knows what it is. The deference given to the juries decision on points of fact (it being overruled on appeal only if the evidence could not reasonably support the conclusion found) is entirely dependent on the premise that the jury is just following the instructions they are given and determining the facts in accordance with those.
That's not to say the rules couldn't be changed, but these aren't just peripheral rules -- to change the rules on what jurors can do upends a lot of the fundamental principles of the jury system. (And that's only dealing with the aspect of the trier of fact vs. trier of law role; then there is the whole question of how they perform the role of trier of fact, and the issue of excluded evidence, which often directly involves the Constitutional rights of the people in court, and Constitutional limits on powers of government.
To an extent, the rise in mistrials is a result of it being easier to detect the kinds of violations that people engage in. It's a lot easier for a party to a case to find out and bring to a judge's attention juror misconduct that consists of or is announced in internet postings than when its just talked about around a watercooler.
Actually, the jury has a right to nullify even the law. If the law itself is unjust, the jury has a right to nullify even the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy. - John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Nothing outside the courtroom should influence your decision in court.
Except that I come into the courtroom with 41 years of real-world experience & education which may or may not be approved by the judge, which may include direct knowledge of relevant laws, and which does include the knowledge that some judges will stifle relevant facts which may throw the case. As a juror, I am not merely a pawn in the game, I am (and intend to remain as relevant) an informed intelligent citizen who holds a 1/12th stake in soveriegnty over the case at hand. Not only are the facts presented up for evaluation by the jury, but the law itself and even the judge are subject to the jury (save only for plainly egregious verdicts). The defendant's freedom, and perhaps life, is at stake - as juror, I owe him more than meek submittal to a judge's biased orders and lawyer's incompetence or ulterior motives. To the officers of the court (attorneys included), the defendant is expendible; the jury should not concur.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
"..., then your plan/rules/process was fucked to begin with."
No it doesn't. Technology changed, and yes the rules will change, but that does not mean the rules were fucked to begin with.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
You are on that Jury, as a "peer", to bring your life experiences and common sense to bear on the testimony and evidence presented. No need to verify your current understanding. You are the Juror, YOU decide what is fact in the case. The Officer presented testimony, you have personal experience that casts doubts on it. In this case, you are really presented with the following options:
Go with your current understanding of this knowledge and determine the officers testimony is not fact, thereby potentially setting a guilty person free.
OR
Discount your current understanding and accept the officers testimony as fact, thereby potentially convicting an innocent man.
In every case I have sat on it was made quite clear: If I was presented with a dilemma like this I was to side with the presumption of innocence.
You forgot:
A large bailiff spots you using a cell phone/PDA/whatever in the courtroom and confiscates it.
When I served jury duty, one of the first instructions from the judge was to turn off all such communications devices. I imagine that violating such an instruction could result in more than confiscation. Possibly a few days in the cell next to the defendant you were supposed to be trying.
Very few people are so important that they society can't function without their continual input to Twitter. OTOH, if you can convince the judge you are one of those, you can be excused from serving.
Have gnu, will travel.
I think corrupt cops should have their heads publicly split open with an axe. Corrupt politicians too.
Granted, the bar to prove actual corruption, as opposed to honest error, should be high. But, it strikes me as the highest crime is undermining the criminal justice system from within, and the punishment for doing so needs to be severe to act as a sufficient deterrent. Not just death, but public, painful death.