Slashdot Mirror


US Trials Off Track Over Juror Internet Misconduct

aesoteric writes "The explosion of blogging, tweeting and other online diversions has reached into US jury boxes, in many cases raising serious questions about juror impartiality and the ability of judges to control their courtrooms. A study by Reuters Legal found that since 1999, at least 90 verdicts have been the subject of challenges because of alleged Internet-related juror misconduct — and that more than half of the cases occurred in the last two years. Courts were fighting back, with some judges now confiscating all phones and computers from jurors when they enter the courtroom."

3 of 405 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Heya politicians, judges and media moguls... by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In a similar vein, it's not like things have really changed. I bet just as many people talked about the case with friends and family, heard things they weren't supposed to, and had just as many pre-trial prejudices before the connected age as they do now. It's just that the new methods of communication leave a trail that public, near permanent, and easily searchable.

    So, in my opinion, the courts can either just throw out the random cases where the jurors are too stupid to hide their misconduct, or they can use this as a learning experience to find new ways to reduce that misconduct. I'm hoping that it's both, leaning towards the latter, but the US judicial system isn't always the most agile.

  2. Re:constitutional issues? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And it still manages to miss the rich folks that don't want to serve. Go check what our previous president was doing during vietnam, the one before him skipped out on that too I think.

  3. Re:constitutional issues? by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I, and a lot of people I know, would experience (and cause) extraordinary inconvenience if required to serve on a jury. My father-in-law is a salesman without salary; if he's empaneled, his family will do without. My brother-in-law is a lawyer; if he's impaneled, his clients will not be represented. My wife is a doctor; if she's empaneled, all her patients will have their appointments canceled with minimal to no notice.

    I don't like paying taxes, but at least I can predict them. I could tolerate a fixed period of essentially unpaid service to the state if I could know start and end dates six months ahead.