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

judges oinstructions have always banned this

[peter303]

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.

Re:judges oinstructions have always banned this

[Abcd1234]

Frankly, if I want to know the details about a case, why would I trust the media (who are digging deep and trying to sensationalize trivial details in order to keep me from changing the channel) any more or less than the lawyers (who are digging deep and trying to distort facts to try to "persuade" me to vote in their favor)?

Because the lawyers are on opposing sides, and so the balance of the evidence they bring forward should produce a complete picture (unless they're colluding or something). There's simply no way you, with a blackberry, are going to be able to find evidence relevant to the case that the two parties won't already have brought forward (unless they, or the investigators in the case, did a truly terrible job).

The *only* evidence you'll gain access to is that which was ruled inadmissable by the judge. But that evidence is inadmissable for a reason. Who are you to decide whether or not you'll abide by that ruling? I mean, jebus, those rulings are made for a reason!

Re:Easy solution

[Shakrai]

There are no requirements that they are literate or law abiding

Well I can't speak to the 'literate' requirement but it is generally understand that you need to be able to understand and communicate in the English language. You are dead wrong on the not needing to be law abiding too. A criminal record disqualifies you from jury service in every single state that I'm aware of.

do you really regard the people living anywhere in your county to be your "peers"?

I regard a randomly selected pool of 12 citizens more as my peers than I would some appointed judge or lawyer who may have a political agenda to advance. There are flaws in the jury system but I wouldn't trade it for anything.

I've done jury duty.

[L4t3r4lu5]

I carried my mobile phone all the time, and used it in the common area to talk to my girlfriend, check my email etc.

I had access to the internet through a wireless hotspot, and I read /. and The Register, NotAlwaysRight.com and other chod websites, and chatted with some other jurours.

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".

Re:Easy solution

[poot_rootbeer]

I myself have always wanted to do my civil duty and serve on a jury but know that I will never be able to because of some stupid stuff I did when I was young.

There's the foolish indiscretions of youth, and then there's felonies.

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.

Check brain at the door?

[dazedNconfuzed]

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.

Re:Easy solution

[Mikkeles]

'And what is "fair" is totally stacked against the state, and in favor of the defendant.'

Yes; the State only gets to make the laws, the rules of evidence, appoint the judges (at least at the higher levels), have a very large group of investigators working specifically for them, and unlimited time and budget, while the accused has a whole lawyer and a gumshoe.

Totally unfair!

Re:Easy solution

[jerAzevedo]

This is precisely how the law is supposed to be.

The United States constitution is specifically designed to give the defendant an edge in court. The founding fathers believed that it's better to let a guilty man run free than let an innocent man be found guilty.

Hence all the principles about innocent until proven guilty etc. This is a very important cornerstone of our country and sadly it seems a lot of people don't understand this. A lot of people would rather lock up almost anyone who gets put on trial just to make sure that all the guilty are in fact found guilty. The problem of course is that you end up locking up more innocent people than you do guilty people.