Lawyer Demands Jury Stops Googling

coomaria noted an unsurprising story about how courts are having problems with jurors Googling during cases. As anyone who has ever been called for jury duty knows, you aren't allowed to get outside information about the case you are hearing, but apparently the iPhone makes it far too easy to ignore this advice. A lawyer is trying to get jurors to sign a form explicitly stating they won't "use 'personal electronic and media devices' to research or communicate about the case." Of course, I'm not exactly sure why a juror should need to sign something for your iPhone but not a newspaper.

Comments

Re:As a former Juror...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

No wait, that is what the attorneys are doing and I expect news bans and Google bans are lawyers attempting to protect their income streams.

I have a huge problem with secret evidence that is used to convict (or acquit). The reason is that there is no chance to point out flaws in the argumentation/facts. While I have no issue with you believing whatever misunderstood facts or falsehoods you pull off the internet in your individual life, I would want the opportunity to correct the record if you're using that to try me.

And that's even leaving aside concepts such as disregarding evidence due to police misconduct.

You see, the whole idea of "law" was supposed to be for a code to bind a society together by making every member capable of some action affecting others to follow a simple set of clear rules, which, again by definition, were to be simple enough to be memorized in entirety by everyone. That is why Hammurabi had the thing carved in stone and placed at public squares, so that "ignorance of the law" was not an excuse for breaking it.

And then the Greeks added professional advocates (choosen for oratorical skill). And the Romans added professional lawyers. Why? Because the law is more complex than any codification of it. If I shoot someone, is it a crime? Well, it depends on a lot of factors, some obvious: was the gun legally purchased; did I have the right to carry it; was I in fear of my life? But even those answers aren't complete. Suppose I had no fear of my life (for the purposes of this conversation, assume that's a requirement for self-defense in my state.) You would say that my shooting was unlawful. But, new twist, he was hiding behind a target in a target range. Wait, additional twist, I knew he was there. Oh, yet another twist, it was part of a magic act and he knew I was going to shoot at him, but there was an equipment failure that made it unsafe.

If you can write a law that handles all those possibilities and all other imagined ones, you'd make an excellent programmer and an even better legislator.

You see, the whole idea of "law" was supposed to be for a code to bind a society together by making every member capable of some action affecting others to follow a simple set of clear rules, which, again by definition, were to be simple enough to be memorized in entirety by everyone.

I think that's where you made your first mistake. I don't know why the actions have to affect another (except that you're a libertarian). I don't know why they would have to be memorized by anyone, let alone everyone. Or why they would even have to be exhaustive.

The purpose of law is to provide a non-violent way of resolving disputes between parites. Period.

We try to make the laws "better" by making actions have predictable consequences, because predictable consequences are a good thing. We even try to make the law create more precitable consequences then the absence of law has, i.e. we not only try to make the effects of the law upon us predictable, but we also try to use the law to counterbalance randomess in our society, such as defaulting on an agreement.

We even try to make the law align with our moral code, so that we are not penalized for doing moral actions or forced to do immoral actions.

But those benefits follow once we accept a need for law.