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."
When I was called up for jury duty last summer, I had to surrender my cell phone before going through the metal detector. I think other electronics were prohibited as well. Seems like this would be pretty simple to stop by a small rules change at the court house. Just ban cell phones and similar devices.
The thing is that they're not supposed to read the newspaper. For one thing, it's relatively easy not to read the newspaper. And for another, the newspaper doesn't contain even a minute fraction of the info that can be found on Google and Wikipedia in 10 seconds.
I can get home from that day's proceedings and have Wikipedia summaries of the law, tons of background info on the defendant and plaintiff, and every news article about the case ever printed in about 2.5 minutes using the internet. How are you going to research case law about employment contracts from home without the internet?
Go read the article. It covers all this.
That is the problem with the system, which explicitly fills large amounts of time with testimony of little or no real value to the case.
Most trials aren't really about "truth" as much as about being "fair". And what is "fair" is totally stacked against the state, and in favor of the defendant.
And people like OJ are free because Furman said the N word (slight over simplification). That's the system. Everyone knows OJ did it.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
"legal system to do things right, a..."
Bull.
outside information can prejudice a juror. The role of juror is to come to a conclusion based on the allowed 'facts' in that court room.
If the internet was an unimpeachable source, then we could have a nice discussion about looking into it and it's impact on the criminal system. Since it is not, then you have jurors as likely as not getting bad information.
If it isn't challenged, then it is true for that court room.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That jury nullification exists as a de facto power is a very different thing than whether or not it is proper. It certainly is the case that the jury can decide the fact questions presented to it on any basis it chooses, including improper ones. Its a bit more debatable whether jury nullification is proper, but in any case jury nullification is not a finding on what the law is, it is a finding that the law should not be applied at all and that the defendant should be let off notwithstanding the law.
Inasmuch as jury nullification is a desirable power of juries (whether or not technically a proper one), I would say that independent, out-of-court investigation, whose contents are not revealed completely to the parties, by jurors in support of it is equally problematic as such investigation in the jury's role as trier of fact, for the same reason: it brings arguments into the jury deliberations that have not been presented to the parties to the case and which the parties whose interests are harmed have no opportunity to rebut.
Jurors need to act responsibly, no question. Twittering on a case in process is irresponsible. As expressed above though, responsibility should also extend to standing up against stupid rules. Example (sorry, can't cite a source): There was a murder case where the victim was stabbed to death and the defendant was found in posession of a bloody shirt with several cuts in it. The defense attorney convincingly demonstrates that the cuts don't match the stab wounds. A juror poses a question. This is obviously very unconventional - but even more unusual, the judge allows it. The juror asks if the cuts match when the victim is curled up in a defensive position. They do. The defendant is convicted. ONLY because a juror spoke up. Another example is video tape of expert testimony that has obviously been edited due to objections by counsel, and then presented without the approval of the expert witness regarding its accuracy as edited. Which of course renders it useless as expert testimony, but it's admitted anyway. Damn the rules. Jurors, and all those involved for that matter, need to do the right thing. Maybe causing a mistrial is the most responsible thing you can do.