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."
> with some judges now confiscating all phones and computers from jurors when they enter the courtroom
Gosh, and I just needed something to motivate me more to participate in juror duty.
OMG!!! Ponies!!!
The internet and connectivity everywhere is here to stay.
Get with the fucking program already and realize things change and that its time to recognize reality and follow suit.
Thanks!
"with some judges now confiscating all phones and computers from jurors when they enter the courtroom."
What makes me wonder is why people would bring these things in the first place. I can understand why someone would bring a cell phone (since we bring cell phones everywhere), but why on earth would you need a computer when doing Jury duty? Or are they considering smartphones to be computers?
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Wait until I tell my 571 friends about this!
How can this be? Only our best and brightest peers get to sit in that stupid box for way too long listening to a bunch of nonsense about something they could give to shits about, then make a decision that's fair. All the peers you WOULD want to sit there (if you're the one in court) will get removed by your courtroom adversary, or themselves anyway. What's left are those that could not come up with a good excuse to get out of the duty, and have nothing but time to waste pretending to do a public service that would be better served from a pool of paid peers. Unless you have a shitload of money, then you get a good lawyer and he'll fight for some "good jurors" for you at least. Good justice is served to those that can afford it. If not, you're fucked.
AND they have to keep the jurors off the Internet. Face it, it's broken, or borken.
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
By being part of a jury pool, you are basically imprisoned during the jury time. Do anything beyond sneezing or don't show up and you get contempt of court and a fine or jail (judge discretion). It is not optional. Anyone see a problem with that?
This is going to be a very tough issue for the courts to resolve since there will always be a strong desire for some jurors to do their own investigations while they are grappling with a tough verdict. I think that many of us would be very inclined to do our own research if we were jurors if just to determine which set of expert witnesses (defense or prosecution) is more correct.
It would be very hard to not lookup details, precedents, and opinion on cases which you are weighing and ultimately responsible for the future life of an individual. I am actually surprised that this type of issue does not happen more often (and, in fact, it probably does happen a lot more often than the numbers reported in the article, as the article itself hints at).
...and have other Jurors determine their fate. Then we create an infinate loop and cause a DOS to the court system.
Instead of kidnapping random people and reducing their entire perception to the proceedings of the case, why not save some time and use the prisoners we already have?
Instead of picking random people who aren't smart enough to evade duty - forcing them a day (or a few) off work et cetera - why not instead EMPLOY people who are actually responsable, and intelligent enough in order to properly take important decisions? You could call them, uh... judges... instead.
Problem solved.
The Jury, as far as I know, isn't supposed to investigate. The investigation has already been done by the prosecution and defense. The Jury is supposed to sit, listen, and make a decision based on what they are given.
I think it might even be illegal for a Juror to do an independent investigation.
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Heaven forbid a juror look up the definition of a word, or be well-informed about something referenced in the case!
Either get someone else to be on call or ask the judge to be dismissed from jury duty because of the undue burden it would put on you and your business. I personally have no idea if asking to be dismissed will work, but it's incredibly stupid to expect court to stop for you while you take a phone call about a tenant complaining about the wailing cat upstairs. In the US, and just about every other country, the court's business is more important than yours. If you can't find someone to help you run you business, you do not belong in that court room.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
You are correct, jurors are forbidden from doing their own investigation. I did not mean to imply that they were allowed to, my point was that there is a strong incentive for them to do so, regardless of the rules.
When making an important decision, it is natural to desire as much information as possible in order to make the best possible decision. If jurors question what they have heard in the courtroom, or have doubts about particular aspects, then they will have an incentive to research the issue on their own.
I would be intrigued to learn if any studies had been done about such cases that show whether juries who broke them rules in this fashion arrive at "better" or worse verdicts (where it is possible to determine what a "better" verdict is).
That'll work great until cell phones start being implanted surgically.
Considering the number of trials in the US, (26,948 in State courts in 2005 for example, so throw in federal trials an round it off to 300,000 over the period amounts to about 3/10ths of 1 percent.
While nothing to hand wave away, it still suggests that the problem is tiny, and the vast majority of jurors do their best to follow the rules.
Only the stupid get caught at this. Those that feel that every facet of their life must be tweeted of facebooked or texted somewhere.
Others may do "research" without getting caught.
I don't worry so much about the facebook posters and tweeters (information outbound usually does not damage a trial) as I worry about the clandestine researchers drawing conclusions using internet sources and facts not in evidence.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Interestingly enough, the original juries in English law WERE supposed to investigate.
Is there no way for the jurors to have any input into what goes on in court? Have they no way to e.g. in some way cause a question to be asked of a witness by someone?
There seems to be two general categories of Internet communications when it comes to trials. One is making comments about the process or trial. This I think has always happened to some extent, but was never made public (i.e. telling your spouse about your jury service). The addition of the Internet has made this more of a problem, because in the end, it is supposed to be the juror's decision about guilt, not him/her and the readers of his/her blog.
On the other hand, looking up terms or information about the trial, I think, only makes for a more informed jury. Otherwise, your only piece of information is from the prosecutor and defense lawyer, which are both extremely biased opinions. Granted, jurors have to be careful to judge information on the web carefully, but we're asking them to do the same thing in the courtroom as well.
... and not just about the "jury nullification" thing.
In some cases, judges have withheld important, material information from the jury in order to get the verdict they wanted.
The two cases I'm thinking of, one involved some ridiculous charges brought by everyone's favorite criminal UFO cult against one of its critics. The other was a medical marijuana case where the judge concealed from the jury that it was a medical marijuana case, and that the doctor on trial had fully complied with state law. In both cases, after the trial, several jurors said that they were horrified, and that if they had had any idea of the full facts, they would have voted differently.
While this would suck if it was your $20,000 in legal fees (average for a four day trial in the US) that just went up in smoke because of a twitter post, is one case in every other state per year a crisis?
This seems like a tempest in a teapot, something for judges to deal with, and worry about, but San Francisco, California Seats hundreds of juries a year. One medium sized city. this doesn't seem to be an issue beyond being a new problem for judges. A comparative study about which Jury instructions seem to result in greater compliance seems like a reasonable result of this data.
Work bio at MMWD
It WOULD be hard to not look up stuff when you went home in the evening, on a multi-day trial.
It's really to hear the people saying "Just turn off your damn phone!" and say "Right on!" but a lot of these juror misconduct cases have been about a juror looking things up online, and then using that information when deliberating in the jury room later.
I'm so used to looking up ANYTHING I'm wondering about... but tour rules are that you're not supposed to base your decision on anything you didn't see or hear in the courtroom.
Interesting discussions here. http://goo.gl/zc77H
I've thought many times during the farce that is jury selection that wouldn't it be easier to pay willing people to do the job. That or at least let the volunteers go first. I'm sure there's plenty of folks that would do it without being randomly picked first. You'd have to filter out some bad eggs planted there by others, but they pretty much have to do that anyway.
Also I was listening to the latest This American Life where they were interviewing the lone holdout on one of the counts in the Blagojevich trial (which why the vote had to be unanimous to stick is beyond me). It didn't take much for the press to figure out it was her and they started camping outside her home, stalking her and the like.
So my thought is, why aren't jurors put in individual rooms with a video feed to the courtroom. Let them watch and then give them an electronic voting booth style poll. Keep it anonymous as to who sees what and who's voting on what. Heck, have them decide on multiple cases and randomly choose which jurors from the pool count. You could even separate when the trial takes place and when the jury sees it. ...and one day the jurors could do this from home over them inter-webby-tubes...
The courts and attorneys are very selective about who they choose for a jury. They want the least intelligent and most impressionable people they can find. They don't want people who can think and reason well. They want people who will follow orders and do as they are told. And if they happen to know what a jury is for, they will not be selected.
The people who fit the profile are also likely to be stupid enough to have an online profile and to openly share information about themselves and what they are doing to the entire planet. (I'd be interested to know what percentage of slashdot users actually have and maintain social networking accounts. I suppose in a way, Slashdot might be considered a social networking site too, in which case I would be a hypocrite... oh well.) From what I have seen, those who are involved in the social networking sites are rather addicted to them to the point that being disconnected may bring about physical discomfort. Expecting THOSE people to not mention everything that is going on in their lives is simply unrealistic.
It is time something changes and I would prefer it if more intelligent, logical and reasonable people were allowed to be on juries.
90 verdicts does not seem to be a high number considering the number of cases in the US. How many verdicts were overturned due to juror misconduct that did not involve the internet? This is yet another sensationalist story.
Jurors can make a request to the Judge for clarification, additional information, etc. It won't always be granted, but they can ask.
Depends on the courtroom. In most states, it is at the judge's discretion whether to allow the juror to be an active participant in the process or merely a passive observer. There are many judges that welcome juror questioning, but others do not. It's usually in the form of a written question passed to the bailiff, who them passes it to the judge, who then determines whether or not to allow the juror to ask the question, though as I understand it, in some (rare) courtrooms, the judges do allow spontaneous questions from the jurors.
more info
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The investigation has already been done by the prosecution and defense.
In theory. I've heard of cases where neither side did a very good job. One such case I remember something about was a woman was accused of poisoning her infant son. She had a 10 minute unsupervised visit, during which she allegedly feed him ethylene glycol (AKA anti-freeze). The child was tested several days later by a hospital and found to have (IIRC) two teaspoons of it still in his system. She was convicted of attempted murder.
She finally got a good defense lawyer, who pointed out that the half-life of ethylene glycol in the human body is 4 hours (IIRC). He back calculated from the hospital's report and found that she would have had to feed him AT LEAST 40 gallons in those 10 minutes. She was quickly released. Turns out he had a rare genetic disorder which causes the body to produce ethylene glycol. Neither the prosecutor nor the initial defense attorney brought up this fact.
Second example: I was on patent infringement jury. The plaintiff claimed he showed information to another company under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), which the other company violated, and caused the plaintiff's company to go bankrupt. I was one of two jurors that didn't buy it. Thankfully we were given copies of the NDA and the bankruptcy papers. We (the jury) argued over this point for more than 30 minutes before the two of us realized that the others didn't look at the documents (our mistake). The date of the NDA was AFTER the bankruptcy filing. The defense never pointed this out. Once my fellow juror and I pointed this out to the rest of the jurors, the plaintiff's case collapsed.
More information is always a better thing tbh. Maybe I'm juror for us gov vs assange treason case and without reading articles I just never find out treason only applies to american citizens. This added fact helps me understand what is going on. Or government caught hacker with wireshark and well that hacking tool is all they have on him. Quick wiki of it gives me information relevant. TBH lawyers just want the ability to be intellectually dishonest.
Depends on the judge, but mostly no. I was a juror on case where that did happen. This was a civil case BTW. The rules were each juror could only ask one question per witness. The questions had to be written, then the judge looked them over. He would throw out any he didn't like. He then showed the remaining questions to both sides, and if either objected to a question, it was thrown out. Any remaining questions the judge asked the witness, then both sides had a chance to cross-examine.
The judge asked those that would stuck around after the trial was over if we think it helped us reach a decision. All of us said yes. The judge did mention he had tried this with a criminal trial and the verdict got thrown out because of it, so he could only do it for civil trials. I wish more judges would do this.
This is actually a good thing. The problem with jurors investigating off their own bat is that the other parties in the courtroom are unaware that this material has now been considered. It means that, say, while there might be a rational explanation for something, the defence will never advance it because it doesn't know the jury is considering it.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
He got through med school but wasn't smart enough to get disqualified by one of the attorneys? Wouldn't want that guy operating on me!
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
I would be intrigued to learn if any studies had been done about such cases that show whether juries who broke them rules in this fashion arrive at "better" or worse verdicts (where it is possible to determine what a "better" verdict is).
There was a case quite recently where a juror decided to investigate, so the court case was deemed to be a mistrial, and the juror was convicted to pay damages to the court, the lawyers, and the defendant. So I'd say it was a worse verdict.
I really do not see how allowing the witness to prepare an answer is a problem at all.
The information given to a jury is carefully and deliberately controlled for a reason. The withheld information may be prejudicial or even illegally-obtained, and therefore should not be considered. Since humans are not very good at mentally excluding such evidence, we don't tell juries about them at all.
All defendants now will receive a not guilty vote by everyone wanting Julian to be free and Wikileaks free to continue. All friends of freedom now vote not guilty. And don't let on that you will do it.
Can't do it. Sorry.
I'm self employed. As such, I can get an exemption if I'm in the middle of a contract when called for jury duty. But between contracts, if the weather is crappy, I'd be more than happy to put my name in a pool for a few weeks. But our local courts have no means of accepting such an offer. And I've been told that its not permitted.
Have gnu, will travel.
In Australia, when the jurors enter the jury room at the beginning of the day, all phones, computers or anything which could be used to communicate with the outside world is taken and locked away. At the end of the day the jurors get them back.
This is standard procedure, to reduce the chance of evidence contamination. Jurors are also required not to perform their own investigations, or to talk about the case with anyone outside of the jury room, both during the trial and after the trial concludes. Breaking these rules can lead to prosecution. I'm always amazed at the stories of jurors in the US talking about trials, why they made their decisions, etc. Here in Australia that would get you locked up.
Then again, jury selection is also very different in Australia. Neither the defence nor prosecution can ask any questions of the potential jurors. Each time I've been up for jury duty (I've served once) the process was as follows (this was for the Supreme Court of NSW - other courts may be somewhat different):
1. Potential jurors asked to be excused. Those who were excused were informed that they would be re-summonsed within about 6 weeks. When you're selected for jury duty in Australia, eventually you will have to allow yourself to be part of the jury pool. You're also informed at this point that by turning up for selection, you've avoided a fine of between $1100-2200. Forms regarding payment options are filled out at this time as well.
2. Those who were not excused were told that they are exempt from any future jury summonses for at least 1 year.
3. Those who were not excused were told about the case. At that point anyone who already knew particulars about the case, knew any of the defendant, witnesses, or felt they hadany other reason that they could not be impartial about the case were excused.
4. One at a time, jurors were randomly selected from the remaining pool. Each of the defence and prosecution could "challenge" (reject) any juror, but only by looking at them (i.e. there are no questions whatsoever). The defence and prosecution could each challenge a maximum of 5 jurors.
5. Once 12 jurors went unchallenged, the rest of the jury pool was dismissed.
6. The 12 jurors were sworn in and informed of their responsibilities, then taken to the jury room.
7. Once the trial concluded the jury was dismissed, and were told how long they are exempt from jury summonses (at least 3 years, but can be longer at the judge's discretion, depending on length of trial, etc).
I was on a jury in Oregon some years back, and we were allowed to submit questions (via a folded piece of paper) to be asked by the judge to witnesses.
You are free to use that as a reason that you can't serve on the jury.
The judge is free to accept that reason or not, and some actually might.
The fastest and easiest to get dismissed from jury duty, even when you don't want to be, is to say you believe in jury nullification and Fully Informed Juries.
I was notified twice I had to appear for jury selection. Both tymes I was hoping I'd be picked to serve on a jury involving possession or distribution of drugs or another victimless crime so I could use jury nullification and send a signal these types of laws restrict liberty. Unfortunately both tymes for 2 days I sat around waiting to be called for questioning without being called.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
you're about to be judged by 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.
Except it's not true. My presence was requested in court for jury selection twice. If I had been picked, I was hoping I would be, chances are good the defendant would have liked me being on the jury. That is because if I think that a law that exists should not I would use jury nullification to overturn said law. For instance I not only disagree with drug laws and prohibition but I would vote innocent if someone were charged with drug possession, distribution, or sells. The same with prostitution.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
No one on the jury should worry if they will be able to put food on the table because they have to help justice.
Now I don't know but I'd think judges have the discretion to dismiss potential jurors due to financial hardship. I believe jury duty is a duty every citizen should participate in however I also am willing to make arraignments for those it would be a hardship for.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
need much better pay to motivate jury $17 a day is way to low and just covers the costs of parking / public transportation.
may jury pay start at $50-$100 day + lunch. and $150 if a over night stay is needed. with added pay for 2 week trials.
When did we stop talking about the United States of America? Clearly you are talking about some other country. People have lives, and jury duty can be a significant burden, especially if it goes on for weeks or months.
Yes it's true even in the USA, especially in the USA where trial by jury is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Jury duty is a duty for every citizen.
I would also add that, in the country with the highest prison population (both total and per capita), perhaps we just have too many acts being criminalized
Ah, we agree on something. I stated upthread I was notified twice to show up for jury duty. Though I wasn't picked either tyme I was hoping to be picked to serve on a jury for a victimless offense. Had I been picked I would have used the power of jury nullification to send the message a law was bad and I was overruling the politicians who enacted it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You're an idiot. Just because YOU don't like some law doesn't mean that no-one else does. So you lie your way onto a jury (when they ask if you would be unbiased, etc). Big deal. Unless by some miracle you find yourself on a jury with 11 other people who also lied their way onto a jury, the most you are likely to do is cause a hung jury. That is not going to change any laws. All it is going to do is cause everyone (including the defendant) to go through the expense of another trial, which you will not be a part of. Get over yourself.
there should 3rd party experts in court / special jury's.
so in cases that deal with stuff like tech can have a way for the jury to ask questions about stuff that they do not know about.
look at terry childs only one IT guy on the jury.
are jurors also not supposed to educate themselves about he process of law?
Sometime neither defendant, judge, nor prosecutor wants an educated jury. Other times one or two may want one but not the other parties. Actually if a potential juror knows about jury nullification if the judge does not dismiss the juror the prosecutor will ask for the dismissal. And other tymes defense will seek dismissal if the juror knows about Fully Informed Juries.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Switzerland does this-every able-bodied male is automatically in the national army and has training for a few weeks a year. I think it's a fine idea, but in the case of the USA, I think the logistics involved would be too complicated.
I've advocated for that too. However I'd make it male and female. As for it being complicated, no it wouldn't be. We ship off those same amounts of kids to school, just extend it to military service.
Speaking of which, I'd also have it so that every year a person serves in the military they get a year of college paid for too.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
That's the point.
"If, by some miracle." If a law is so universally regarded as unjust that this set of circumstances doesn't constitute a miracle, that's the sort of situation for which nullification is (IMO) warranted.
If that happens, and there's a new trial, then you've got 12 more randomly-selected people who will have to come to some sort of agreement. If, by some miracle, they also say "not guilty", lather, rinse, repeat. Eventually, the DA's going to get tired of it and give up.
Four boxes in defence of liberty: Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo. Use in that order.
If asking your representative doesn't get you a law you can support,
And if voting in another representative doesn't get the law changed,
Then the next box to open is the jury box. People break the law and stand before a jury of their peers. And if all 12 jurors refuse to convict, and they do so repeatedly, over many cases, the law may remain on the books, but it won't be enforced.
That's a damn high hurdle to overcome. Hundreds, maybe even thousands of people being charged, found not guilty by juries of their peers, only to be released and then charged the next time they commit the same offence.
It has to get worse than that before opening the last box is an option.
My fellow jurors, whose opinions matter just as much as mine do, also get a say in the outcome. They might have trouble convincing me that a law against "buying beer before noon on Sundays in County XYZ" is right and just, but there are other "victimless crimes" where many people, myself included, would be perfectly open to counterarguments. Convincing 12 randomly-selected jurors to nullify a law is hard. It's supposed to be hard: if any of the other parts of the system are functioning, the situations under which nullification is even plausible should be astronomically rare.
(I'd nullify the one about beer on Sundays. I'd be damn tempted to nullify, but would be open to counterarguments on a DMCA violation. I'd nullify if someone bludgeoned a spammer to death :)
If I miss two week's pay in one go, I will lose my home and my car. It will ruin my life.
Life hasn't been good to you lately? I'm sorry about your financial difficulties but wait until you've been disabled in an accident then see how life treats you. I am in that boat and for the past 14 years my life has been a living hell. I have not worked in that tyme. My disability does not pay enough, when I get all of it. Which hasn't happened in 2 years. The only reason I have a roof over my head is because my sister owns the apartment I live in and lets me live here rent free. However that may not last long because she is having problems too, financial and from the government.
It really irritates me when others say how bad life treats them but who are fully capable. Until they are disabled there's little to complain about.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
And when do the prosecution and defense get to cross examine those experts?
This is going to be a very tough issue for the courts to resolve
It doesn't need to be, just pass a law allowing Fully Informed Juries. Even better, cut court cases by bringing back jury nullification.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
it's just as bad as people who make $17 a day to do the same.
I understand your sentiment, but good luck with that fairy tale you've suggested.
Enough Americans are now obsessed enough about taxes that the tax increase needed to pay for your Increased Jury Pay suggestion would get hammered at the ballot.
However, if you suggested lowering jury pay to help some taxhole save $0.12 on his bill, I'm pretty sure it would pass.
From the article "half those cases in the last 2 years" half of 90 is 45, so a big 20 cases/year?
Here in sunny Ventura County, California, there were probably 10 cases going at a given time.. I would think 1000s per year, and that's a medium sized county of the 52 in California. THere's probably a million cases/year in the whole U.S. So, this sort of thing is of the same general frequency as getting hit by lightning?
If you're always amazed, then something is wrong with you.
Being amazed the first time makes a lot of sense. No problem there.
But after you learned that US jurors aren't prohibited from talking about cases after the trials -- after you knew that -- you were still amazed the next time you saw a juror do that?
I met a Portuguese man, and was amazed that he spoke Portuguese. I had never heard that language before. Then, later, I met another Portuguese man, and something AMAZING happened. You're not going to believe this. He spoke Portuguese too!!!! Amazing.
Fyuck the bytch judges ... they are an ingrown, malicious arrogant lot that's needed a yomanry slap-down for decades. Citizens jealous of their powers can take back power over their courts -- lost to a foreign **legalist** cosmopolitan mindset by ringing in the WWW data-stream and ringing out obstructionist judges rules. Data-stream early on all cases ... datastream often seems the best policy for juries.
Nope, your debt is never paid. You can't get a decent job. You can't vote or hold public office. You cannot join the military. Several 'inaleinable' rights are out right infringed or curtailed.
Crime empowers politicians and the more criminals there are committing crime the more power they accrue.
I could throw out some Roman era quotes if you'd like. I suspect I'd get ruled a troll if I threw out some by Ayn Rand or one of the communist philosophers like Trotsky.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
The investigation has already been done by the prosecution and defense.
And probably poorly. I'm unlikely to ever be enpaneled for any significant criminal case, because if I have any questions that the testimony didn't answer, I'm going to consider that reasonable doubt.
Juries shouldn't be doing their own investigations in secret, but they should be able to ask witnesses questions, and send requests for more testimony. They should also have complete access to transcripts and crime scene photographs.
I'm not sure that restricting the jurors will really address that concern. You talk about what jurors learn (or to be fair, what legal technicalities they think they learn) during the trial, but what about before the trial?
A juror can look up "burden of proof" from an arbitrary source when he first gets the jury summons ("ooh, I'm gonna be on a jury! I better start reading up on how to do this!") or form an opinion based on watching lawyer TV shows over the course of 10 years, or from taking seriously every slashdot post he's ever read that starts with the words "IANAL, but..."
If the jury's decision weren't going to be based on a near-infinitely diverse variety of opinions, knowledge, values, cultures, etc that are totally outside the judge's instructions and the trial record reviewable by appeals, then we wouldn't bother to have juries. The whole point of juries is that the government doesn't get to make the rules and the jury's thinking can't be at all codified, with all the advantages ("yay, the citizens have a democratic check on the powers of courts!") and disadvantages ("oh no, mob rule!") that injects into the system.
If people are convinced this is too dangerous to the cause of justice, then let them (in USA) repeal the 7th Amendment. But let's not pretend that if only judges can get juries to act properly during the trial, that the jury's instructions and the trial record will be complete. They're not, and they never were.
In the end, and really no matter what political system people adopt, justice is our (We The People) power, whether directly by jurors or indirectly by judges appointed by legislative bodies whose members were elected after they raised enough money (by doing Cthulhu-knows-what) to buy enough advertising to convince people who eat at McDonalds that they're name sounded good during the primary that 20% of the population bothered to vote in. And what actually happened during the trial isn't part of any reviewable record; it's in the mind of some guy who entertained fleeting thoughts as he dipped his McNugget into "hot and spicy" mustard sauce. That guy ends up making the decision, either way, and the appeals court won't be able to point at some point in his thinking process and say he made an error. And I'm not saying it's pointless to have a trial record and appeals, just that let's not kid ourselves that this is some inviolate sacrosanct thing that is suddenly being threatened by cellphones.
Instead of worrying about what some idiot looks up on Google, let's persuade people to think about justice and the world they want to live in. That's all we really can do, anyway, so get to work on it instead of running around scared of the mob.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
need much better pay to motivate jury $17 a day is way to low and just covers the costs of parking / public transportation.
may jury pay start at $50-$100 day + lunch. and $150 if a over night stay is needed. with added pay for 2 week trials.
Your employer is legally required to pay the difference between the jury stipend and your salary. Even if you are a temporary or seasonal.
Of course, this varies by state. My state [Massachusetts] does. YMMV.
.
Irony? Hey this is the state that has Newark Liberty Airport.
The way I've always heard it is -
If you're actually innocent and you have the opportunity, pass on the jury. They convict too often on too flimsy evidence because your public defender is overworked to the point of incompetence and the prosecutor will happily withhold exculpatory evidence, fabricate the stuff that damns, and orate like a banana-republic dictator in the absence of either.
If you're actually guilty, go for the jury. Sometimes they can be swayed by irrelevant evidence, unimportant procedural error as evidence of something sinister, or sheer emotion (e.g., Orinthal James).
Unless you're self employed, in which case you're entitled to absolutely nothing, you're expected to just drop any work you might have on and tell your clients 'sorry, I'll be some indeterminate amount of time late' and hope that they ever want to work with you again.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Thank you for your insightful post which shows that having complex laws leads to the ability for the government (judges) to game the system and work around the right to due process (fifth and fourteenth amendments) --- they merely have to instruct the jury about the too-complex law in question in whatever way they feel will sway it to the decision they want to attain.
The case cited by the GP is a perfect example --- it seems likely that the judge could have instructed the jury in a totally different manner, and gotten the exact opposite verdict.
The Post-9/11 G.I. bill (which went into effect around 2008, same time I was leaving the military) - no longer requires soldiers to have money deducted from their pay.
My brother-in-law told me that Obama changed the GI Bill once he was in office. Searching I saw the change you brought up. But unfortunately I didn't find any changes where I was covered. After being disabled I've been trying to get back to college but haven't found any financial assistance.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?