Slashdot Mirror
Courts Move To Ban Juror Use of Net, Social Sites
coondoggie passes along a NetworkWorld report on the pronouncement of a judicial conference committee recommending that trial judges specifically instruct jurors not to use any electronic communications devices or sites during trial and deliberations. Here's the committee report (PDF). "If you think you're going to use your spanking new iPhone to entertain yourself next time you're on jury duty, think again. Judges are going to take an even dimmer view of jury member use of Blackberry, iPhone, or other electronic devices as a judicial policy-setting group has told district judges they should restrict jurors from using electronic technologies to research or communicate. ... The instructions state jurors must not use cell phones, e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone, text messaging, or on Twitter, or communicate through any blog or website, through any internet chat room, or by way of any other social networking websites, including Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and YouTube."
Maybe that's so but it still feels like the little boy with a finger in the dyke - I know, I know times have changed and that means something quite different now ;)
Actually, "dyke" has always been a slang term for a lesbian. The word you were looking for is "dike".
I can't imagine call phones or networked computers are allowed for a sequestered jury anyway
Here in Western Australia, the courts "ask" you to surrender your phone. Doesn't even matter if it doesn't have a camera.
This seems to be about recommending that ALL jurors refrain from accessing these social networks, etc. But I can't see how it's practical outside of the courtroom or deliberation. They can "instruct" the jurors all they want not to go online for the length of the trial, but that's not going to stop too many people...
The rules aren't any different than the current rules for jurors. You're not allowed to discuss the case, and refrain from news about it. This is just updating the rules for the 21st century.
to put it politely, bollocks...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Yea, you tell them. I love masturbating and if I had to stop for days or even weeks because I was on a jury, I'd probably shoot up the place...wait, what ingrained habits were you referring to again?
Exactly, unfortunately most people here need to RTFA.
The suggested instructions specifically inform jurors that they are prohibited from using these technologies in the courtroom, in deliberations, or outside the courthouse to communicate about or research cases on which they currently serve, the group stated.
There are a lot of comments below that are obviously by people who did not read that.
But, as with so many other new laws, why is it even necessary when there are already laws in place?
So that would be "You're not allowed to discuss the case, and refrain from news about it" with the extra clarification of "using any technology available, whether it existed at the time the law was drafted or not". That's still "You're not allowed to discuss the case, and refrain from news about it", whichever way you look at it. Unless someone was completely short-sighted in drafting the original law then these rewrites seem pointless and overly verbose purely for the sake of having another law.
It was all electronics/recording devices the last time I had jury duty. You used to have to hand them to the Sheriff's officer as you went in to the box, but now it's only if you're actually empaneled. There was no 'ask,' it was a 'must' for us. I've gone three times, into the room four, into the box once and got challenged. They seem to change the setup every time. The last time they'd moved the court.
Wrong, oh so wrong. A distinctively US mistake, I suspect, that I hear results in this bunch getting some very strange correspondence.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
From TFA, I believe it's only talking about using these things to discuss or research the case ("The suggested instructions specifically inform jurors that they are prohibited from using these technologies in the courtroom, in deliberations, or outside the courthouse to communicate about or research cases on which they currently serve, the group stated."), and not a blanket ban (which would be absurd and draconian).
Although the article is rather badly worded - the paragraph "The instructions state jurors must not use cell phones, e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone ..." could imply a blanket ban, especially when taken out of context.
A blanket ban in courtrooms isn't unreasonable too - although they'd better have secure storage facilities, and be fully liable for all costs if something goes missing.
(Oh, and I guess I'm allowed to use my Nokia 5800 then, since it's not a Blackberry or Iphone.)
This seems to be about recommending that ALL jurors refrain from accessing these social networks, etc. But I can't see how it's practical outside of the courtroom or deliberation. They can "instruct" the jurors all they want not to go online for the length of the trial, but that's not going to stop too many people...
All that the committee is saying is that jurors can't use electronic media in the court house and can not use electronic media to research or discuss the case outside the courtroom.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Juries do not need to research their "rights" while a trial is on, they should be concentrating on the evidence in court, and if there is a point of law or something, they should ask the judge.
One of the "rights" of a juror is that of jury nullification. Though it is quite controversial, the history of common law and most of US legal precedent suggests it exists. However, if you ask a judge about this they will explicitly tell you that it doesn't exist.
Yeah, I'm certainly not going to agree to being sentenced to weeks of solitary confinement without having myself been accused of a crime. Even prisoners get to receive visitors and make phone calls.
Watch out, refusing to serve jury duty is punishable by jail time ...
No jury would convict on that!
In Texas, it is defined as contempt of court and only requires the judge to sentence you.. no trial involved.