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."

Comments

No different than any other sequestering

[dreamchaser]

How is this different than any other method of sequestering a jury? It makes perfect sense to me, human nature being what it is.

Re:No different than any other sequestering

[Dahamma]

I can't imagine call phones or networked computers are allowed for a sequestered jury anyway - but I think "sequestering" a jury is pretty rare - the state has to provide hotel accommodations and food to everyone in the jury, which is really expensive!

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...

Re:No different than any other sequestering

[BrokenHalo]

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.

Re:No different than any other sequestering

[coaxial]

I guess courts treat jurors like children.

Only if as a juror you behave as a child, and can't respect the rules of evidence.

These rules have been around for centuries. As a juror, your information about the case you're hearing is to come through testimony given in court. This allows for a fair trail, since both sides can attempt to refute the evidence and testimony. If you go around playing amateur Columbo and CSI, you're going screw up someone's life. You are not an expert. You don't know what you're doing. You're engaging in the CSI effect.

Don't. Just don't. If you do, I'd want you thrown off my jury.

And forget bringing your laptop or iPad into the court room to take notes about what's going on in court, so you can make an accurate decision when it comes time for deliberation.

Exactly. That's why they give you *gasp* a pen and paper!

Re:No different than any other sequestering

[the_womble]

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.

Re:No different than any other sequestering

[IBBoard]

But, as with so many other new laws, why is it even necessary when there are already laws in place?

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.

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.

Re:No different than any other sequestering

[theheadlessrabbit]

Exactly. That's why they give you *gasp* a pen and paper!

and how the hell am I supposed to type with a pen and paper?

Re:No different than any other sequestering

[kfm2000]

Good point. I was thinking that a jury ban on intartube-connected devices was solely to prevent access to this site:

http://fija.org/ [Fully Informed Jury Association.org]

Merely reciting the quote on the home page beginning with "The primary function of the independent juror..." will be enough to get you thrown off of most jury panels.

Re:No different than any other sequestering

[russotto]

These rules have been around for centuries. As a juror, your information about the case you're hearing is to come through testimony given in court. This allows for a fair trail, since both sides can attempt to refute the evidence and testimony.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that, along with voir dire, it allows the judges and lawyers to control the process and the verdict while providing the veneer of a trial by jury.

And?

[OverlordQ]

This is surprising how?

Such use has resulted in mistrials, exclusion of jurors, and imposition of fines. ... The instructions state jurors must not [...] 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.

Because we all know Facebook and YouTube are full of impartial people who know anything about case law.

Re:And?

[japhering]

The issue is people using the internet to look up information that they have been told they can't use when deliberating.

Things like the defendants personal wealth, criminal record, information on "evidence" that has been ruled inadmissible or just plain trying to stir up public opinion in an effort to sway the court.

On the flip side some defendants have tried harassing jurors via their personal electronics or having some one physically show up at a jurors residence or place of work.

However, given that most juries are not sequestered, this like all the other instructions depend on honesty of the juror and the people they associate with.

Having been on a non-sequestered jury for a murder trail, it is a pain in the butt to go home after a day in the jury box and not be able to watch the evening news, read the days newspaper,just surf the internet or discuss with your significant other (all things banned by the judge in his instructions).

How was your day?

Jury duty all day.

What type of case?

Can't tell you.

How long will it last?

Can't tell you?

I'm going to bed, will you watch the news and tell me what the weather will be like tomorrow?

Sorry, I can't watch the news.

Well, then look it up on the internet.

Sorry, I'm not allowed to use the internet.

Then how are you going to stay caught up at work?

I won't I'm on jury duty and can't use the internet.

and on and on and on

Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wear a T-Shirt that says "Jury" on the front and "Nullification" on the back.

Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again!

[Trepidity]

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.

WTF?

[EzInKy]

Specifically, those instruction spell out that jurors should not you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials, search the internet, websites, blogs, or use any other electronic tools to obtain information either before the trial, during deliberations or after until the judge instructs otherwise.

Okay, maybe if jurors were required to pass some type of basic test that indicates they have a reasonable understanding of basic terms this would make sense, but denying the use of dictionaries makes no sense at all. How in the world is a "normal" person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one when they aren't even allowed to research what is being said?

Re:WTF?

[bmo]

>but denying the use of dictionaries makes no sense at all.

It does make sense. That's because most dictionaries do not give the legal definition for a term, and the legal definition can vary from state to state. If you are unsure, and you are on a jury, you have the foreman ask the judge the meaning of a word.

For instance, there is the colloquial definition of the word "insanity" yet in the United States there are 51 legal definitions (50 states plus federal) of that term.

I am sure NYCL and other actual lawyers here that can chime in on this topic.

Looking shit up in a dictionary can be a very bad thing.

--
BMO

Re:WTF?

[bmo]

It's like you didn't even read what I wrote, skipped right to the last line, and didn't think for one second that wrong information can be worse than no information.

Let me repeat it again, slower this time, and louder: TYPICAL DICTIONARIES DO NOT HAVE THE CORRECT LEGAL DEFINITIONS IN THEM THAT YOU CAN USE IN A JURY ROOM, WHICH IS WHY YOU SHOULD ASK THE JUDGE FOR THE DEFINITION OF A TERM THROUGH THE JURY FOREMAN.

--
BMO

Re:WTF?

[mpoulton]

Specifically, those instruction spell out that jurors should not you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials, search the internet, websites, blogs, or use any other electronic tools to obtain information either before the trial, during deliberations or after until the judge instructs otherwise.

Okay, maybe if jurors were required to pass some type of basic test that indicates they have a reasonable understanding of basic terms this would make sense, but denying the use of dictionaries makes no sense at all. How in the world is a "normal" person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one when they aren't even allowed to research what is being said?

If the definition of a word is of critical importance in a case, that is all the more reason for jurors NOT to consult a dictionary. Dictionary authors are not the final arbiters of legal disputes, and their opinion on what words mean carries no weight in court. Besides, which dictionary rules? No, it is the jurors' understanding of the relevant terms that governs. The parties will surely spare no efforts in explaining their preferred interpretations, if it's important to the case. If it's not a matter that's open to interpretation by the jurors, then the judge will provide the definition to be used. These same rules apply to all information in the trial, not just definitions of words. Any information the jury needs to know to resolve the case must be provided by the parties, or by the judge. If the parties fail to provide enough information, they suffer the consequences in the form of a poorly informed verdict. Because outside information cannot be vetted for accuracy or legal relevance, and cannot be rebutted by the parties, it is ENTIRELY IMPROPER for jurors to consider it, and DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF THE TRIAL PROCESS! Before you argue otherwise, put yourself in the position of either party to the case and consider how you would want this to be handled. You will inevitably reach the same conclusion - complete control of the jury's information feed will give the best and most consistent results for any party to the dispute. Jurors find this frustrating, but trials do not exist for their entertainment.

How can jurors tell if a lawyer (or more importantly, a witness) is pulling a fast one? Two ways: first, the other attorney damn well ought to be calling him out. That's his job. Second, jurors apply the same common sense factors that let them determine trustworthiness every day outside the courtroom. What if the judge is pulling a fast one? That's not for the jury to identify or correct - that's what appellate courts are for. Appellate judges earn their salaries by determining when trial judges got things wrong.

Re:WTF?

[egburr]

Yeah, the AC did read what you said. That's why he suggested to "start operating the courts in English" as opposed to legalese that only superficially looks like English but has completely different non-obvious meanings for words that ordinary people use all the time.

Typical juries don't even know that they don't know the meaning of the words. The words are ones they use all the time, so they think they know the meaning and see no need to ask for an official definition. It is the legal system that perverts those meanings.

If you want the jury to get it right, come up with a list of commonly misunderstood (for the courtroom meaning) words and make sure to spend some time educating the jurors. Don't wait for them to ask the meaning of words, because they already think they know the meanings. Sometimes, they will start to realize things aren't making sense and will try to figure out what's wrong.

I would be much more likely to try to look it up myself instead of asking the judge to explain it. For one thing, even the friendliest of judges is very intimidating, just because he is a judge and you are in his courtroom, whether you're the one on trial or not.

Re:WTF?

[cbeaudry]

How about, we live in 2010.

The average Joe is 10 times more educated than 300 years ago and will use that education when forming his opinion.
Allowing that person to read a dictionary, research terms, definitions, subjects, etc... allows for a TRUE jury of his peers.

Throwing them in there blind is the stoopidest shit every. Its about the theater of the court room, and a person can be thrown in jail because of the incompetence of the defense or the other way around (someone can walk because the prosecution was incompetent).

If the jury is supposed to be the decider, then allow them to decide.

Again, we are in 2010, time to stop this fucking gaming of this system bullshit.

Re:WTF?

[pla]

Any information the jury needs to know to resolve the case must be provided by the parties, or by the judge.

This premise leads to an outright absurdity.

First, you have lawyers speaking what looks like English but has only a thin connection to it. Would you feel comfortable sentencing a man to death in a trial conducted entirely in Mandarin Chinese (or if you happen to speak Mandarin, substitute any other language you don't know)? Except, this works out even worse, since the jury thinks they understand, but most likely do not follow key subtleties in either argument.

Second, I work as a software engineer. I know, even stated humbly and conservatively, vastly more about how modern electronic devices work than the average Joe. In a trial where such information means the difference between innocence and guilt, you either need everyone to have my level of understanding, or expect me to play dumb and listen to TweedleDee and TweedleDum argue about whether computers run by pixie dust or really small gerbils running on their wheels.

And finally...


What if the judge is pulling a fast one? That's not for the jury to identify or correct - that's what appellate courts are for.

BS. Every single aspect of the trial should enter the jury's consideration. We have Jury Nullification for precisely that reason. Think the judge has pulled a fast one because the government can't afford to let yet another drug smuggler go free on a technicality? Innocent by way of I-bloody-well-don't-feel-like-saying-guilty.

Unfortunately, that requires having a well informed jury, not the first dozen morons you could find who haven't the curiosity or resources to have watched TV in the last two months.

Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again!

[BrokenHalo]

It occurs to me that having a T-shirt saying "GUILTY" should be a pretty good way of getting yourself excluded. ;-)

Re:Uninformed Jury

[advocate_one]

Third, you do not have the right to nullify a trial, it is illegal to do so.

to put it politely, bollocks...

Welcome to the 21st Century!

[__aaclcg7560]

If they remake the movie "12 Angry Men" (like everything else these days), the story will be about 12 angry men who are kept locked up in a jury room with no access to their online porn.

Pathetically ignorant and condescending

[A nonymous Coward]

I know about the artificial separation of judges deciding law and jurors deciding fact, but forget that for a moment.

Jurors are presumably supposed to use their judgment to decide the facts -- are the witnesses trustworthy, is their testimony full of inconsistencies, how do different witness's testimonies stack up against each other ...

But all this REQUIRES that jurors use their own knowledge to some extent. If a witness says something that is obviously wrong to a car mechanic but not an ice cream clerk, that mechanic darned well better tell the other jurors why he thinks the witness is lying. Jurors are expected to NOT drop their real-world knowledge at the door. (I am particularly thinking of My Cousin Vinny, where only a car fanatic would know vital clues about the tire tracks and what kind of car could have made them.)

Now how is this different from a juror who knows just enough to be wary of something and looks it up (NOT during the trial, but at home, or even during deliberations)? It's all fine and dandy to say that is up to the opposing lawyer to handle, that jurors are not police or investigators, but that is word games. If I knew something before the trial, I am expected to use that knowledge to uncover bad testimony. But if I acquire that knowledge during the trial, I am supposed to pretend I don't know that a witness is lying?

Maybe a case can be made for looking up a witness's past history, but even then I don't think so. If I knew a witness personally before the trial, knew he had a history of lying, knew he hated the defendant or was jealous of him or was in love with him, whatever kind of influence you can think of, that is part of my knowledge and part of how I decide what is true and what is false. Even if the only reputation they have is from always appearing in newspapers under unsavory conditions, I am not expected to forget all that when evaluating their testimony. And yes, I am ignoring the idea that prior criminal history is not supposed to be part of a defendant's current trial, but I also think that is bunk -- if some guy has been to jail a half dozen times for beating people up, that sure as heck is significant.

This all stems from olden times when jurors had no way of looking things up, and very little need. But the world is more complicated now, people know more and get around more, and I'd rather be tried by jurors who knew how to look up things for themselves rather than sit around like stupified monkeys.

Re:Pathetically ignorant and condescending

[cthugha]

The difficulty with jurors accessing material outside of the evidence led in court is that the party against whom that material is used has no means of challenging or testing it, since (a) it's not been disclosed to anyone outside the jury room and (b) even if it were disclosed, who's available to be cross-examined on that material? Are you going to go out and drag the journalist, dictionary editor, Wikipedia contributor, blog author, etc into court after both sides have closed their cases? How are you even going to be able to identify or locate that person?

Jurors (and judges, in judge-only trials) are limited to considering only what has been formally admitted into evidence to ensure that basic procedural fairness applies to all the material used in the case. Further, the public would be prejudiced in their ability to assess the result of the trial if they didn't know about all the evidence themselves, which can't happen unless it is all led in open court.

This doesn't stop jurors from applying the general knowledge and "common sense" of the ordinary person to resolve conflicts in the evidence as directed by the judge and after hearing counsels' arguments on the point, but the rules of evidence in most jurisdictions also say that if a party doesn't challenge a piece of evidence then the court is obliged to accept that evidence.

Finally, your point about criminal histories is based on a half-truth: criminal history is admissible when an accused brings character into issue, e.g. by suggesting that a prosecution witness is lying. Otherwise, it's on the prosecution to prove that the person committed this particular offence (at least it is outside the US).

Terrible editing on this non-story

[Narcogen]

The summary here contains a pullquote that has been specifically edited in a misleading way to turn what is basically a non-story into a story.

The summary says:

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."

Pay close attention to the ellipses after "communicate".

This quote appears to be from the committee report, but the committee report link is broken; it contains no href, just anchor tags.

The article says:

"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"

Not convinced yet? Here is the complete first paragraph from the committee report mentioned, but NOT linked to, in the quote contained in the summary:

"At its December 2009 meeting, the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (CACM) endorsed a set of suggested jury instructions that district judges should consider using to help deter jurors from using electronic technologies to research or communicate about cases on which they serve. The suggested instructions are included as Attachment 1."

Emphasis is mine in previous two quotations. In other words, you are not banned from using these devices or services. The article mentions that you may not use these things to discuss or research the case. The networkworld article uses the inflammatory word "ban" in its headline (inappropriately) and the Slashdot post goes even further, deliberately eliminating context crucial to understanding the actual guidelines and replacing them with ellipses.

Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again!

[japhering]

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.