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
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"
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.
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
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.
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.
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).