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."
It is, and the problem has been dealt with already. It's an issue of jurors not following the orders they've been given. Jurors are ordered not to investigate the case or speak with anybody about it while the case is ongoing. After deliberation you can speak freely about your thoughts, but up until then you're ordered to avoid coming into contact with any information related to the case where possible, and report any possible exposure to the bailiff, so that the judge and attorneys are aware of anything which could compromise the verdict later on.
The bigger problem is that the jury pool ends up being people that are less educated or retired and don't necessarily get shown a lot of respect by the politicians that require them to be there. The court staff does treat jurros well typically, but it's hard to feel appreciated when you're being asked to lose so much money to serve.
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.
Yes.
I own several apartment buildings. If something happens, I have to take care of it ASAP.
That thing rings during a trial you will have plenty of time cooling your heels in jail (without a phone) for contempt of court.
You do NOT use a phone when on Jury duty.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Not really. if you want to have the privilege of being tried by peers, then you need to man up and do your duty.
Frankly, I think we should have compulsory military service too. Then maybe we might think more about going to war with everyone if it wasn't predominately poor minorities serving.
*breaks out the flame-proof suit*
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
You know what's really cool. Being stuck in jail for weeks on end because they can't put a jury together because our society is full if irresponsible, narcissistic bastards who think jury duty is something someone else should do because of the minor inconvenience it represents. Just hope you don't get to find out about that first-hand.
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
There can be a lot of downtime in a trial. I was recently a juror in a murder trial, and out of the 6 hours or so allotted on each day scheduling for hearings, maybe 3-4 hours total were spent in the juror box listening to testimony. The rest of the time we were locked in the deliberation room while the judge and attorneys discussed stuff.
We were not allowed to discuss any aspect of the case with each other until after closing arguments, so it was pretty common for people to pull out the phones while in the deliberation room and check email/browse/play games/whatever during these recesses.
Interestingly, we did have a case where a juror ignored the judge's admonition against outside research - she printed out a definition of "Burden of Proof" she found online and brought it into the deliberations. It was confiscated by the bailiff before anyone else could look at it and she was dismissed. We spent most of the rest of that day playing on our cellphones waiting for an alternate juror to come in.
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"
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.
I disagree; I think it's also a scale issue. Now instead of talking about the case with their husband or wife and maybe a couple friends, they talk about it with everyone who's following them on Twitter or friends with them on Facebook. Instead of a few people, it's dozens.
And for all the denying this fact that people seem to do around here, making things easily searchable makes a big difference. If I'm on a jury, don't care about my instructions, and am curious what the press said about the case, it's entirely likely that I'll be curious to just type the guy's name into Google while I wouldn't have been curious enough to go to the local library and start pulling back issues of the local newspaper.
Unless you're sequestered (very unusual because of the expense), you aren't "imprisoned", all you're asked to do is not talk about the trial nor gather any information about the matters being disputed. Why is this a problem? Is it so impossible to tell people that you can't talk about it?
Of course you may be found in contempt of court if you don't show up without notification. Trials are expensive and the schedules are always packed. The trial may have to be delayed because you can't be troubled to show up. And you feel that this is wrong?
I've served on multiple juries, some trials lasting multiples of weeks. In that time all of my friends accepted that I wouldn't talk about the trial, I didn't run home and look up the particulars of the case (can't say that I wouldn't have loved to, I just didn't) and didn't feel imprisoned. I guess something's wrong with me...
> 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.
Yeah, god forbid we actually participate in the judicial system we love to bash so much around here.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
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).
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.
That's not how it works. You are not supposed to do any research yourself. You are supposed to decide based on the research done by the prosecution/defense, and not look up stuff on wikipedia or other websites.
Interestingly, we did have a case where a juror ignored the judge's admonition against outside research - she printed out a definition of "Burden of Proof" she found online and brought it into the deliberations. It was confiscated by the bailiff before anyone else could look at it and she was dismissed. We spent most of the rest of that day playing on our cellphones waiting for an alternate juror to come in.
God forbid a juror actually be familiar with the law...
Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
No, I don't.
A citizen of the United States has 3 civic duties:
1. Vote as wisely as you can.
2. Serve on juries when called upon to do so.
3. Contribute funds to pay for the government i.e. taxes.
Some of them are a pain in the butt - nobody likes paying taxes, for instance. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be willing to do the job that Americans fought and died to have. I've done it, and it's really not all that difficult. You go in in the morning, hang out with a group of strangers you're eventually going to know pretty well, listen carefully to evidence presented to you, and decide whether the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed the crime he is charged with committing. It may take a while, but it's important to do and do well, for the benefit of the defendant, victim, and society. Because it someday might be your future on the line, and you'd want your jury to do the same.
I am officially gone from
The bigger problem is that the jury pool ends up being people that are less educated or retired and don't necessarily get shown a lot of respect by the politicians that require them to be there.
Citation?
I was just on a jury about a year ago and the average age was somewhere around 30-35, I think there was one person close to 60, maybe two in their 50's, and three of us in our 20's.
I was actually kind of surprised at how "average joe" everyone was, while still being a pretty diverse group.
There was only one retiree in the group, and the vast majority was college educated. This same distribution was roughly true of the people prior to jury selection, too (you know, where they gather everyone up before sending off to various court rooms for selection). There weren't a lot of old or apparently uneducated people.
Your blanket statement simply does not hold up with my personal experience at all, and since you cite no references, I call bullshit.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
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.
Have you ever actually served on a jury? I hear statements like yours often when this topic comes up, and it's just wrong. I have only my own experience to base my opinion on, but in everything I've been involved in the jurors were intelligent, educated people who wanted to see that justice was served.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Also, judges for the most part are understanding of hardship exemptions. In your average court in your average week, there are far more potential jurors than will be needed...if I trial is expected to be long , they usually ask if it would pose an undue hardship on you to be in court for 3 weeks or whatever (such as having an employer who won't compensate you for the time). You can't really lie about this but if it is true, the judge will release you if there are enough other potentials.
Bottles.
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?
Frankly, I think we should have compulsory military service too.
It's called a draft, and it happens every time a legal war is declared.
And sometimes when war hasn't been formally declared. The last legally declared war was WWII. The last time there was compulsory military service was Vietnam.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Then maybe we might think more about going to war with everyone if it wasn't predominately poor minorities serving.
Well, MAYBE.
How many US Senators have "Served" In the military? Congressmen as well? Presidential Candidates? You'll find quite a few (though not all) had spent SOME time in the Military, though often never in any sense of real danger. Or at least, that's what Hollywood, Conspiracy theories, and pop culture in general has led me to believe.
That whole idea could backfire because the ones in power could feel as though the law is on their side, and that they wouldn't need to actually justify the wars they wage. At least this way - the military strength can be limitted to those who are poor and not so much the middle class.
Yes.
I own several apartment buildings. If something happens, I have to take care of it ASAP.
That thing rings during a trial you will have plenty of time cooling your heels in jail (without a phone) for contempt of court.
You do NOT use a phone when on Jury duty.
The last time I went to jury duty, a judge spoke saying that a ring of the phone messed the questioning of a witness. The lawyer had spent quite a while getting the person in the right position to get a case-making statement to be made when a juror's phone went off, giving the witness 45 seconds to prepare their answer.
My wife was called to JD this week. On Monday, as the initial screening began, the first group to be dismissed was felons. Per her report, about 10% of the people present got up and left at that. Your jury pool reflects the jurisdiction from which it is called.
No it is NOT called a draft. A draft is put into place in order to get more people into the armed forces when required. What the parent poster is talking about is conscription and there are a few European countries that still use it. It usually works by mandating that once you turn 18 you must serve x years in a branch of the military. I think this would be a GOOD thing but I imagine it would never get through congress.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
What's wrong with that? How many times do all the smart people have to make up an excuse because it will cost them too much financially?
I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
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.
No, you aren't. While I haven't actually been imprisoned, I have been inside a prison and I have served on juries, and they are not even remotely similar.
You ask for citation beginning of post. Then conclude he fails because he didnt give citation? Are all internet comments now requiring that they have applicable citations page now for all posts?
Conscript armies tend to be hugely understaffed and under-budgeted things, simply because they are so big. Israel can afford one because it has little population growth, a small population overall and a lot of cash.
Russia or the US don't fit that bill.
Actually, I believe the militia idea is better. It works for the Swiss, it worked for the Germans while they weren't trying to overrun anyone, it worked great for Finland, it even worked for the United States until Washington got it into his head that he needed a regular army to be a proper respectable general.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
We manage to ship most of our children off to public schools, I think we could manage to extend it to local military organizations at age 19. The thing that really peeves me about the draft is the "male" filter. Get rid of that, and then it's not that big of an issue.
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.
The bigger problem is that the jury pool ends up being people that are less educated or retired and don't necessarily get shown a lot of respect by the politicians that require them to be there. The court staff does treat jurros well typically, but it's hard to feel appreciated when you're being asked to lose so much money to serve.
The proper solution here is for legislation that requires employers to treat jury duty as paid time off *separate* to normal vacation time.
dlevitan wrote:
your only piece of information is from the prosecutor and defense lawyer,
The prosecutor and defense lawyers speech can also be restricted in most states. The purpose is specifically to limit the juries knowledge to what the judiciary considers relevant. This has been considered constitutional since 1895. Prior to that a jury was often addressed as "the Nation." "Will the Nation please rise" was intoned when the judge entered the courtroom. The tension between the judge, who represents the government, and the citizen jury, that represents the people, is obvious.
Background for the function of the Jury in English and U.S. constitutional tradition
The Constitutional Relationship of the People to the Law
Trials are expensive and the schedules are always packed.
And yet despite all this "expense" they can't be bothered to pay the jurors the market value of their time as well as for inconvenience?
I suspect more would be happy to serve on jury duty if they got paid the judge's salary to sit there.
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.
Yes, they were compensated the same way we are now -- knowing that if you are indicted, you have the right to trial by jury. Jurors in the US have never been compensated well fiscally (excepting bribery :)) -- it's civic duty to serve.
You are compensated for your time as a juror by the fact that you live in a more-or-less orderly society where you (in principle) have rights that the government cannot take away.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Washington needed a regular army in order to have an army. Broke colonies couldn't pay for their militias much longer.
And it's important to note that Washington abhorred the idea of a standing army... the army was disbanded after the Revolutionary war. The first military action of the new republic, the put-down of the Whiskey Rebellion, was done with an all-volunteer army.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
A quick question for you to consider:
If you are a defendant in a criminal case, do you want the evidence brought against you, the interpretation of the law that is being applied against you, and any questions that the jury cannot decide for themselves based that evidence and interpretation to be available in an accurate record that you can cite in an appeal, or in a juror's cellphone browser history that walks out the door and never sees the light of day?
Yes, it is a loaded question, because if you had any experience with the legal system, you'd know that details like the rules of evidence, jury instructions, and the trial judge's handling of jury questions/special verdicts are critical in the attempt to ensure that jurors make decisions based on reliable and complete information in accordance with the law of that jurisdiction.
Wikipedia's definition of the term "burden of proof" is a mess, and even acknowledges that "The precise meaning of words such as 'reasonable' and 'doubt' are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country." I will guarantee that the grandparent was given an explanation of the concept of burden of proof applicable in that jurisdiction and/or case, either during the oral instructions, in a written version of those instructions, or by both methods. The lawyers and the judge went over those instructions carefully to ensure that they were correct, because if they were not that's a potential issue for reversal on appeal, even ignoring the fact that at least the judge wants the jury to make a decision on proper grounds in the first place.
The definition the excused juror printed out underwent no such review, and wasn't going to appear in the trial record. So what would happen if it was wrong?
If your presence at work is critical, you can get a deferral (I've done this in NY & NJ). In my experience, this is done via a letter from your employer (or self, if self-employed) to the court requesting it. Eventually you'll need to serve or face a contempt-of-court charge.
This allows companies and individuals to not face undue hardship from jury duty.
When I was called in NJ, I was once even given the opportunity to select when I would be available, and I scheduled projects/coverage at work around it.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Yes. Take vacation, whatever shee needs to do in order to be prepared to do her civic duty. There are other doctors out there -- and if not (rural area, etc), then she should be able to get an excusal.
She's a prime example, I believe, of people who will find an excuse to avoid their civic duty. I understand that the fact that she's a doctor mitigates it a bit. I understand that it's hard to clear a week. I understand that there is sacrifice involved. But she depends on society, just as society depends upon her -- and she should fulfill her duty just as everyone else should.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Intriguingly, according to the jury instructions my wife was handed at her recent jury duty, "you will be instructed to consider the evidence in light of your own experience. You are not allowed, however, to relate any special or expert knowledge or opinion that you have regarding business, technical or professional matters to your fellow jurors."
So the doctor and lawyer would find themselves responsible for a mistrial, possibly a contempt of court citation, for explaining anything to the other members of the jury.
Ask the judge about the words you don't understand.
Or are you smarter than the judge and know how to run trials better based on your extensive experience in jurisprudence?
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).
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?
Haven't the felons "paid their debt to society"? Why is the USA continuing to punish them? I've heard you don't let felons vote.
Anarchists never rule
I'm sorry but if you take a jury trial over a judge? You're an idiot. My mom served on one a few years back, and came in white faced afterward and said "NEVER take a jury trial, ever!" Why? Because they finally had to declare a mistrial after she hung it up for nearly two weeks straight at 11-1 to convict. here is the story-
The guy was on trial for supposedly burning down his business. There was NO motive as he didn't even have enough insurance to cover the place and was therefor gonna have to file bankruptcy, the fire inspector said under oath he couldn't actually tell WHAT started it, there was no accelerants detected, and he admitted that the place had had fires in the past from faulty stoves, and that was it. No witnesses, no bragging to someone he started it, hell considering the place was doing okay he had every reason NOT to want the place burnt, so why did the jury fight with mom for nearly two weeks to convict this guy and send him away for a decade? "Because he is Italian and they are in the mob and burn things. Haven't you ever watched Goodfellas?"
That is right fellow /. readers, this guy almost got his freedom taken away because of a Joe Pesci/ Ray Liotta scene in a mob movie. it didn't matter there isn't actually any mob here, just that his last name was Italian. So remember folks, a jury is made up of twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty more times than not. My mom has always been civic minded, the rest of the jury? According to her the most bottom of the barrel trailer trash you could ever dig up. If they hadn't seen it on the idiot box it didn't exist. So remember that and ask yourself do you REALLY trust twelve morons to decide whether you spend a decade in PMITA prison?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Nor do you run out of the courtroom to deal with a major water leak from apartment B3. The reality is, someone in a crucial position like this needs to be excused from jury duty, or the court needs to find a way for them to address the matter (it's not easy, so excuse them). People in many self-owned and operated businesses do get excused from jury duty easily.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I'm truly saddened by how hard it's been for you.
But...
Why the hell does that invalidate my problems?
There are starving children in Africa, you know.
So the doctor and lawyer would find themselves responsible for a mistrial, possibly a contempt of court citation, for explaining anything to the other members of the jury.
I don't know either a doctor or lawyer that'll explain anything to you without billing by the hour.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Just because your life is worse than his doesn't make his problem less real. The reality is, many people live from paycheck to paycheck, and asking them to take an 80% pay cut for two weeks or a month is undue hardship for them. I'm tremendously grateful that I'm not in your shoes, but I also think you might consider extending some empathy for people who are also in an unfortunate situation. There's always someone worse off than you, just as there's (almost) always someone more wealthy.
Having a family member who obtained a felony years before 20, and "paid their debt" by 25; I can assure you that there is no statute of limitations on punishing felons.
It must be put on every job application. It bars you from entering certain jobs where the application must be deemed trustworthy; like X-ray technician, McDonald's food worker, etc. It's the new underclass.