Slashdot Mirror
Judge Declares Mistrial Because of Wikipedia
Pickens writes "The Palm Beach Post reports that a police officer convicted of drugging and raping a family member will get a new trial because the jury forewoman brought a Wikipedia article into deliberations. Broward Circuit Judge Stanton Kaplan declared a mistrial after Fay Mason admitted in court that she had downloaded information about 'rape trauma syndrome' and sexual assault from Wikipedia and brought it to the jury room. 'I didn't read about the case in the newspaper or watch anything on TV,' says Mason. 'To me, I was just looking up a phrase.' Judge Kaplan called all six jurors into the courtroom and explained that Mason had unintentionally tainted their verdict and endangered the officer's right to a fair trial. Mason does not face any penalties for her actions."
Will Jimmy Wales appeal?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Anytime a mob boss gets convicted nowadays they can just get one of the jurors to bring something into the jury room. Don't need to threaten people anymore, no harm no foul.
So only an ignorant Jury is a fair one?
It wasn't cited, the jury foreman was unsure of a specific phrase and used wikipedia to look it up. Honest mistake. Her proper course of action probably would have been to ask the judge to provide some literature about it instead of going out on her own to get it.
I would never cite wikipedia, but it is still an effective tool while doing research.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
So what makes a reference acceptable? I mean even the Encyclopedia Britannica contains errors or has entries that have changed / are out of date. And even the thickest dictionary doesn't contain all the words, for some things you just have to go to urbandictionary.com. I can't image many mainstream dictionaries having entries on a Dirty Sanchez, et al. while it could come up in a court..
In the end, I think Wikipedia should be an allowed reference source as long as _all_ (and not just from wikipedia) sources are checked by the court later on.
It wasn't cited, the jury foreman was unsure of a specific phrase and used wikipedia to look it up. .
Bringing it in to show to others == a form of citation.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
It's possible that she wasn't college educated or wasn't college educated when Wikipedia was around. Remember, jury members come from all walks of life.
How can an encyclopedia taint a verdict? Isn't it the task of a court to understand the vocabulary used in a trial? And what would have happened when had read the article before the trial? Or even before the accused has done anything? However, I do not understand that jury concept in all aspects. As we normally only use two jurors beside one or more judges. And the jurors get prior training before working as jurors. But I know that is a little different in the Anglo-Saxon world.
Given the enormous amount of external information available to any juror, perhaps we will soon be forced to sequester juries more frequently, just to prevent them from doing their own research?
Palm trees and 8
"If I was on trial I sure as hell wouldn't want the jury looking things up on wikipedia"
Well I'd prefer them doing some research rather than being a clueless bunch of fucks who make their decision about my freedom based on a hunch.
Is it not possible that the judge just wanted a particular verdict and used this as an excuse to replace a jury that was reaching a different conclusion? It would explain why he speaks of "tainted" and did not try to "correct the wrong" and proceed.
Do we REALLY want a justice system where the jurists are encouraged to be ignorant?
When searching for "reference materials for juries" I came across numerous links to some of the most absurd things. One example of jury misconduct was listed as using a dictionary for the purpose of understanding a legal term.
When jurists actually want to know and understand what is going on and how things work, I am encouraged that the justice system "wants" to work as it was intended. But when I see the officers of the legal system blocking certain aspects and elements of the justice system, I have to feel disappointed and disheartened.
Indeed, the stereotype is that highly educated people are less likely to be selected.
No, one would prefer a jury be informed by the testimony of an expert witness who has been accepted by the court as having credentials and experience in the field and not a bunch of guys int heir basements edit-warring over an article or page on a subject they have no direct research experience in.
"Remember, jury members come from all walks of life."
Unfortunately that's not the case, since a large majority of the more educated ones, with a job they might lose, try to get out of jury duty by simulating racism, substance abuse or whatever, leaving the jury with pensioners, jobless and non-working spouses.
Well I'd prefer them doing some research rather than being a clueless bunch of fucks who make their decision about my freedom based on a hunch.
No, I want my defense team educating the jury rather than an anonymous edit on Wikipedia. I would also expect the prosecution to be fact-checking everything my defense team says, and the reverse would also be true.
This way, the only things that the jury learns are things that both sides agree are facts. Or, if it is something that is in disagreement, the jury learns that something is not a fact, but a point that one side says is true while the other side says it is false. This is core to the American justice system.
If they had to look something up on Wikipedia, then the defense team did a poor job. Thankfully, the justice system accounts for this & allows me to appeal with a new defense team.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
perhaps if the juror had brought in a volume of Encyclopedia Britannica, things would be different.
Or if the defendant was not a police officer.
Or if his lawyer wasn't just elected to a position of a judge.
On Wednesday, the judge lowered Olenchak's bond from $100,000 to $35,000 and ordered him to turn in his passport within 30 days. Olenchak has been in jail since the jury delivered its verdict on Dec. 2, but relatives are working on posting bond.
Olenchak also will have to hire a new defense attorney. John Fry, who represented him at trial, won election in November as a county court judge and will be sworn in on Jan. 4.
Well, if I'm ever called up for jury duty, I guess I would have to check my brain at the door. I read a lot of stuff about all kinds of shit in The Economist and also Wikipedia. I don't need a printed copy to recite what I have read.
Oh, I have been called up for jury duty. My mom called the number to explain that I live on a different continent: problem solved. When my dad was called up, he told me that both the prosecution and the defense would try to toss anybody with half a brain from the jury pool. So he didn't serve.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
This is a case of the jury not following the judge's instructions. One of his instructions is for the jury to not perform their own independant investigation. There is very good reason for this.
If a juror needs more information, then the juror can ask in the court. This is the limit to the investigative capability the juror has, and this is explained in the court room before the trial begins.
Jurists are people with legal experience. Jurors serve on juries.
I just finished jury duty so this is all fresh in my mind. The jurors job is to determine if the evidence presented shows that the defendant violated specific laws. The judge lets you know specifically what the laws are and explains what they mean if it is too cryptic for a non-lawyer to understand. In the case I was in it basically meant that all 6 of us were used as human lie detectors to see which witnesses were the most truthful. We were encouraged to ask questions if anything was unclear about the law, evidence or charges. Outside interpretations would have tainted the whole thing.
As it has come out in the comments below, the headline is plain wrong.
The judge declared a mistrial because a juror did something jurors are not allowed to do; bring outside information into deliberation. That the information in this case happened to be a wikipedia article is hardly relevant. In fact, it is a poor attempt to make a common "illegal stuff deemed illegal"-case interesting for it computer.literate.
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
Having never actually served on a jury, how exactly would a juror go about learning what a phrase means if everyone was acting like it's supposed to be common knowledge? Do they just, like, raise their hand and ask?
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Actually yes. The jury asks the judge for clarification of anything they way, and the judge then sorts out who has to tell the jury.
A trial had to be cancelled because of leaks in the courthouse's bathrooms !
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
I've served twice. If something came up we wanted more information on, we'd ask the bailiff, during a break, and he/she would pass the request on to the judge, and the judge would address it in some way, either with a description or by bringing someone in.
In my first trial, they had brought in a piece of defective equipment as evidence. During a break we felt that we should have a better look at it, so we asked, and were then allowed to go right up to it to inspect it in detail. This up-close inspection allowed us to come to a decision quicker.
Sorry , but since when are lawyers experts on every possible area? Would you trust a lawyer to give someone the inside on computer hacking? No. So the lawyers just repeat parrot fashion what they've found out from somewhere else - possibly wikipedia.
Declaring a mistrial here was the only effective way to guarantee the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial, including the right to examine the evidence against him. There's quite a bit of jurisprudence on the use of expert testimony to make sure it's relable, and allowing the jury to just Google whatever they want for information just tosses that process out the door.
Imagine you've been falsely accused of child molestation, based on the faulty science of "recovered memories." Would you want the opportunity to challenge the evidence against you through cross-examination, or would you prefer it if the jury could just pull up some article written by a quack and be swayed by it, with no chance for you or your defense to explain the basic fallacies it contained?
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
"If I was on trial I sure as hell wouldn't want the jury looking things up on wikipedia"
Well I'd prefer them doing some research rather than being a clueless bunch of fucks who make their decision about my freedom based on a hunch.
You say that like the juror had no other means of research. She could have requested material from the judge. That is the right way to do it in a trial.
It has been clearly documented that citing wikipedia can be dangerous.
An important change for education.
You're an idiot. If i can go into Wikipedia and edit almost any article, i think that qualifies as misleading information in its purest form.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
I've been on a jury a few times (just lucky, I guess), and there is usually an expert brought in. Sometimes the prosecution can just get the psychologist or lab tech who is on staff to explain their measurement/diagnosis. The problem is, no matter how good the expert is, the prosecution MUST ask the correct questions or the jury is totally confused about the facts of the case. That is a major pain in the ass during deliberations. There are some people who, despite clear instructions from the judge, just don't understand what their role as juror is. As long as this is what the system is, the best the lawyers can do is try to explain as much as possible (or not...).
That if the prosecutor had withheld exculpatory evidence that the judge would not have done this?
The agents of the state can literally get away with "murder by state" (some prosecutors have actually successfully defended the prosecution of likely innocent men on death row), but a jury forewoman cannot research a technical term.
I'd be more sympathetic if the law actually stated that if a prosecutor violates any procedure in court, intentionally or unintentionally, all charges are dropped with prejudice (meaning they can never be refiled).
**All charges**
yes, so as stated elsewhere, the PROPER course of action would have been for the jury foreman to request that information from the judge rather than go out on her own and dig it out.
The information in Wikipedia is actually probably accurate from a technical sense, but different jurisdictions may have slightly different meanings in from the standpoint of the statutes that Wikipedia does not reflect.
This is the correct legal decision.
I have only once. My group number was never called into court, and at the end of the day the clerk of courts dismissed my group.
I just sat in a comfortable chair in the jurors' lounge playing Castlevania on my Game Boy Advance all day (with a break for lunch). It was AWESOME!!!
That has to be the dumbest thing I've read on here all morning. Seriously. Well, after the judge getting pissed that a juror wanted to be better informed and *gasp* used the interwebs to do so.
Baseless self confidence kills more people each year than bathtubs.
This is all Julian Assange's fault!
Wikipedia must be shut down!!
The Internet must be brought under control!
That doesn't always happen. My last jury stint involved a trial with more than one defendant and an invocation of the so-called "felony murder rule". The judge wanted each jury member to affirm that they would treat the felony murder rule as Gospel, AND made this demand WITHOUT any detailed discussion of its value or history. When I specifically asked for that, the judge flatly denied my request. So I did what any freethinker would have done: during lunch I "broke the rules" using the court house's free wifi and researched the felony murder rule on my Pocket PC.
Given my experience I'm not inclined to fault this woman for what she did, even though she was more surreptitious than I was. She likely figured the judge would have simply denied such a request, as the judge did mine. Our current juror system truly does favor ignorant valueless robots. I'm not happy at all making that observation.
Was there expert testimony for the jury on "rape trauma syndrome?" If not, then how can they make an informed judgment? Judges and lawyers are not experts outside of law (if that!) If no medical testimony is given, the jury has a duty to inform itself otherwise it'll be participating in a possible miscarriage of justice.
Both sides are allowed to find and present expert witnesses to explain these things to the jury.
Rod Taylor
Sorry , but since when are lawyers experts on every possible area? Would you trust a lawyer to give someone the inside on computer hacking? No. So the lawyers just repeat parrot fashion what they've found out from somewhere else - possibly wikipedia.
Of course not. That's why you'd hear from an expert witness, you know, someone who testifies under oath and who both the defense and the prosecution agree can speak authoritatively about the subject at hand.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
> Sorry , but since when are lawyers experts on every possible area?
Lawyers don't have to be experts. They need to understand the material at least a little better than the jury. If you argue a patent case, it is helpful to know more, but what you really need to know is a little bit more than the judge and jury. You don't need to know as much as the inventor does about his field. You need enough understanding to help other people come to the right conclusion, which just happens to be that your side wins. :)
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
"If I was on trial I sure as hell wouldn't want the jury looking things up on wikipedia"
Well I'd prefer them doing some research rather than being a clueless bunch of fucks who make their decision about my freedom based on a hunch.
The jury is to obtain their information in the courtroom and nowhere else. It's the defense's job to provide the jurors with the information the accused requires them to have. Jurors that go out and gather information and conduct research themselves cause mistrials. Sometimes the jury can talk with the judge and ASK for certain information or clarifications, but they're barred form going out and getting it themselves. Requested information like that has to go through the judge to insure fairness. There's a reason there are very specific laws on what evidence is admissible in court, and if a juror is going out and getting the evidence themselves, they're bypassing the courtroom whose job is to insure fairness.
I can somewhat see the juror's motives though, they probably considered wikipedia on par with an encyclopedia or dictionary. (not that I AGRRE with that conclusion, but I could believe it could happen for someone) I don't even know offhand if an encyclopedia is allowed reference for a juror. But a wiki of any sort is obviously not.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
They're not, but they bring in real experts rather than relying on Wikipedia editors with who-knows-what qualifications and experience in the topic (if any).
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Declaring a mistrial here was the only effective way to guarantee the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial, including the right to examine the evidence against him.
Not at all. A mistrial might be the appropriate remedy. The more intelligent thing to do would be to look at the information brought in, determine who looked at it, and determine if the information brought in would taint the jury.
The article isn't clear at as to what was the offending information in the article and why it tainted the jury.
And what if no side called such a witness? If they falsely assumed I have a clue while I don't?
AFAIK, jury cannot even suggest what witnesses they would like to possess. So, I honestly don't know if he's guilty or not. This information is at hand's reach, a solid confirmed piece of data that would remove my doubt and allow me to judge fairly. And yet I'm not allowed to reach for it and I'm not allowed to ask to get it. As result, a lawyer's incompetence combined with blind luck will decide about a person's freedom, while a few words extra could make the verdict definitely fair. But no, they would taint my cluelessness...
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
This way, the only things that the jury learns are things that both sides agree are facts. Or, if it is something that is in disagreement, the jury learns that something is not a fact, but a point that one side says is true while the other side says it is false.
Isn't the entire point of a jury to decide what is fact and what is not? A juror that has the wherewithal to do his own research is going to be better prepared to do that.
The real reason juries aren't allowed to do their own research is because controlling the fact presented to the jury is one of the few ways the judge can control the jury. Judges will even exclude fact, that both sides agree are facts, because it might lead the jury to make a decision the judge disapproves of.
Sure, they dress it up as fairness. As if the truth could be prejudicial. If that were actually the case, we'd have judges ruling on what sort of evidence scientists can consider before they make their conclusions. No, the only way to make correct decisions is to weigh *all* the evidence.
Consider the "Exclusionary rule". It's intended as a deterrent to keep cops from presenting evidence illegally obtained. But to enforce this rule you must have tight control over what the jury knows. But we already have a deterrent for when people break the law. Prosecute the cops who broke the law to obtain evidence and you no longer need the exclusionary rule, and so you no longer need to control what the jury knows. So you have better behaved cops, and better informed juries. It's a win for everyone.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Well I'd prefer them doing some research rather than being a clueless bunch of fucks who make their decision about my freedom based on a hunch.
It doesn't work that way. Before deliberating the judge provides the jury with instructions. These instructions generally quote the pertinent laws and provide definitions as provided in statute or case law. While deliberating, jurors can ask for further definitions, clarification, etc. if needed and the judge had discretion whether or not to provide the information. This keeps jurors from accidentally introducing the definition of "sexual assault" as defined in New Mexico when the trial is in Florida. I think one of the more common issues of what jurors have to deal with in a criminal trial is exactly what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means. This phrase has different meanings in different jurisdictions.
The trial was not cancelled "because of Wikipedia", it was cancelled because a juror did not respect the procedure, as much as it would not be "because of the Press" if the juror had brought a newspaper in.
...and ask after the trial was over and deliberations were about to begin, to be given encyclopedia-type definitions of the information...
Thankfully, the justice system accounts for this & allows me to appeal with a new defense team IF I CAN STILL AFFORD IT.
It's quite likely the current team was incompetent because I couldn't afford any competent ones.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Yeah because it would be great for the jury to be using the wrong definition of a key term and you not being able to appeal the decision because there's no damn record of it at all.
that always works in my favor.
New Economic Perspectives
The other thing that a lot of people misinterpret is that a mistrial is not an acquittal. The defendant can be retried for his crimes.
I am officially gone from
The system needs to change. We live in the Information Age and this whole notion that juries are never going to get any outside issue is a non-starter. It's antiquated and the system needs to reform to reflect that fact.
And what if no side called such a witness?
Assuming we're talking about a criminal trial, then you find "not guilty". It's the prosecution's job to prove the case. If they didn't, then they lose.
A civil trial is less cut-and-dry, but the same basic rule holds -- the plaintiff needs to prove his case. If he doesn't, then he doesn't win.
If they falsely assumed I have a clue while I don't?
Your lack of clue is actually part of your oath as a juror, to only consider the evidence provided to you in the courtroom by the lawyers under the observation of the judge. If they falsely assume you have a clue when you don't, that is their problem.
Well, in a criminal trial, if you honestly don't know then you have a reasonable doubt and don't convict. Better 10 guilty men go free and all that.
If you have a question or a misunderstanding you ask the bailiff and he will pass on your request to the judge. The judge then has a say as to whether or not you receive said information and in what form. If the prosecution didn't present its case clearly, competently, and completely then it is not your job to do so for them. You are there to judge the facts; if those are not presented it is not your job to go out and find them.
Unlike Wikipedia, a party on a trial usually doesn't have any interest in presenting a balanced picture. Few people would trust a statement from a lawyer more than Wikipedia.
Imagine you've been falsely accused of child molestation based on the fault science of "recovered memories". The judge considers this settled science, so your defense team cannot question the scientific basis of the evidence. (This happens all the time with fingerprints). Wouldn't you want the jury to be able to do some research on their own to discover that recovered memories are a load of shit?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It's your lawyer's job to make sure the jury knows all the facts. If you get slammed because the jury was mis-informed, blame your lawyer not the jury or the justice system.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
You are there to judge the facts; if those are not presented it is not your job to go out and find them.
That's what I hear the judges keep saying. But the entire concept of Jury Nullification shows that the jury is there to hand out justice, not judgement. Generally, the two should be the same thing, assuming competent lawyers and morally sound laws. Since those assumptions are not always true (or close enough to true), some jurors will take the phrase "Justice System" literally, and endeavour to hand out actual justice.
Real experts, as defined by the court. You know, why don't they dispense with jury trials altogether? Some crack team of programmers could write a program with some rules of inference, and the court could enter all of the legally approved definitions and evidence, and the computer could decide guilt or innocence on the spot. No messy background, history, experience, or anything else a juror brings with them to muck up the process.
Lawyer: So, Dr. Blaggermeiser, please tell the court your qualifications in this matter.
Good: I have a PhD in subject area from local or prestigious university. I teach graduate level courses on it.
Questionable: I wrote the wikipedia article on this stuff.
Bad: I read most of the wikipedia articles on it.
Prosecute the cops who broke the law to obtain evidence and you no longer need the exclusionary rule
Ah. So what you're saying is that laws that punish bad behavior have the result of preventing all such future behavio by all people, always. Why aren't you arguing that by having a criminal justice system in the first place, and using it for just a little while longer, we'll reach a point where we don't need any more trials, ever, anyway? Because that's your logic at work, here.
Judges are looking out for the integrity of the trial. Jurors aren't allowed to testify, and they are screened for what they know about the subject matter, going into the trial. If a juror, during selection, says that they're sure that all crime is committed by people possessed by aliens, the counsel for one or both parties is going to give them the heave-ho. If a juror, during the trial forms a new opinion on something about which they're otherwise uninformed, and they do that on their own without that new information being vetted by both sides involved, then the trial is justifiably called into question. As in this case.
As if the truth could be prejudicial.
The context in which a juror is exposed to new information during a trial is a central aspect of the entire system, and for good reason.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Wouldn't you want the jury to be able to do some research on their own to discover that recovered memories are a load of shit?
I'd rather be able to appeal it on the basis that the judge was clearly biased.
the problem isn't that the jury needs to remain clueless the problem here is she went outside the proper protocol for retrieving that information. she should have made a request to the judge for this information. and then it is the judge's job to at his discretion provide them with that information if it is appropriate to the case.
Appellant: "The world is flat"
Respondent: "Agreed, the world is flat"
Juror: "Wikipedia says it's round"
Judge:" MISTRIAL!"
If the woman had previously read that article on wikipedia, would she have been booted out of the jury pool during the voi dire? If so, any time I get called in for jury duty I'm going to tell everyone right away that I actively read wikipedia.
No, because they're just as likely to come up with inaccurate information as accurate.
I'd prefer my lawyer do their job and get the judge removed due to bias.
I'd prefer my lawyer do their job and convince the jury of my innocence regardless of the judge's bias.
I'd prefer the legal system to allow for the fact that judges are human as well, and have built-in safeguards to accommodate same.
In other words, in this particular case I'd prefer to trust in the system.
Flawed as it is - as you point out - it's a lot better than trusting in random chance. Which is what the jury doing their own research amounts to.
There is a small problem if you do it that way. What happens when police routinely gather evidence illegally to nab someone and juries routinely let the police off the hook by way of jury nullification? Do you really think that the cop who barged into a suspect's house without a warrant and found loads of kiddie porn on the premises would be punished for that action by the jury? What world do you live in? The only way that would work is if we got rid of jury trial for police misconduct like that.
It's sad to say but the 4th amendment isn't really all that popular. People never hear how it protects them from the heavy hand of the state, but they hear frequently about how it allows criminals to get off on a technicality.
But I don't think the jurors are allowed to ask the expert witnesses any questions. And the defenders and prosecutors aren't psychic, and can't know what one or more of the twelve might want to learn more about.
So in reality, the jury members may have to flip a coin to choose whether to believe the prosecution or the defender as to how to interpret the parts that the expert witness actually talked about.
IMO, we have two problems:
1: The whole "peer" requirement has gone down the drain. If car mechanics is likely to be an important part of the case, put car mechanics on the jury. If medicine is, put pharmacists, doctors and nurses on the jury. The jurors are supposed to make up their own mind, not blindly accept what someone else says. That requires a minimum of understanding.
2: The practice of the system doesn't allow for the jurors to interrupt the process for elucidation. And to make it worse, there's pressure within the jury to get the trial over with quickly, shut up during deliberation, and come to an agreement. I.e. groupthink.
Sequester the jurors from each other, and give them the means to send the judge questions real-time, which the judge will either allow and have the court clerk ask the witness, or deny and log the reason for denying the request.
Yes, it'll probably prolong trials. Which is the point. The defendant has a right to a speedy trial, not a reckless one.
People have been sent to their deaths based on blatant ignorance and groupthink. It needs to stop.
Lawyers are not experts on everything. A lawyer is expected to research the facts of the case and have an understanding that is reasonable enough to make a logical argument. If a particular topic is very complex and the jury needs to be educated, then the lawyer places a subject matter expert on the stand as a material witness to describe the facts of said topic. In this case, the defense lawyer should have put a psychologist who specializes in this particular type of trauma on the stand to testify to the facts of what this trauma is and how it relates to the case. This is standard practice in the courtroom.
A perfect example of why its so important to allow jurors to ask questions. If councils and the judge had known the jury had questions on Rape Trauma Syndrome they could have addressed this in a legal way. Judges that have tried it say it works great. There is no reason it shouldn't be SOP in US courts.
How does it work when someone wants a clarification about expert witness testimony. If twelve people listen to a witness explain some complicated subject, and some interpret it one way and some interpret it another? I know that you can pass questions to the judge on some subjects, but can your question be "what did witness X mean when he said y? Can he provide a clarification?"
If not, then is there a way before the cases have been rested to say "hey, I missed something, can your witness clarify?"
Exactly. Part of the trial system is to prevent rumor and bias from influencing the verdict, so either the sides agree to what is a fact, or the judge rules as to whether evidence can be presented over the objections of one of the sides. For prior knowledge (or bias) held by a juror, that is detected during the jury selection process, and can either be accepted by both sides or excused.
So the juror doesn't have to be clueless, they just have to be fair-minded, and then base their verdict only on evidence presented in court.
We are the 198 proof..
What about tech cases where lots buzzwords can come up?
How do you setup up a system where the juries don't have to ask the judge what does this mean and then have to ask again for part of the definition used to tell what what the 1st word is?
What about stuff about how DNS / IP's / networks work? and they you have juries where people have little idea about any of that other then to just call tech support?
The juries system is stuck in the past and seeing how jury pay has been the same for years shows how out of date things are and why smart people get out of as the pay is much lower then most jobs and that is before you look at the costs just to get to court as $20 day of less can just cover gas / parking / bus / rail costs + lunch.
If the jury is getting out-of-band information your lawyer can't know in order to make sure they get the right facts.
How does is your lawyer supposed to know that the jury didn't understand something if instead of asking for clarification they grab a wikipedia article on the topic?
And I didn't blame the jury or the justice system. Note, that this jury got kicked out so it all works fine as is to me, I have no blame to dish out.
It's pretty simple, the justice system intentionally withholds things from juries and does so in order to maintain our freedoms. You really want the police to just not bother ever getting warrants since they know they can just leak the results to the internet and the jury will ignore the court instructions not to look for such things.
Judges are looking out for the integrity of the trial.
And what if they aren't? What if they're deliberately manipulating the jury through instructions in order to affect the outcome of the case? Remember, judges are just really good lawyers. Lawyers are just really good liars. So judges are really really good liars.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Prosecute the cops who broke the law to obtain evidence and you no longer need the exclusionary rule, and so you no longer need to control what the jury knows.
So that means it should be okay for cops to torture suspects, and evidence acquired that way should be admissible as long as the cop doesn't mind being tried for assault afterwards? Better yet, let's just give the police the ability to make that threat, and coerce confessions that way; that way there's just a vague 'uttering threats' charge against the cop that probably won't even stand up in court -- who is going to take the word of the now-convicted felon against the cop who caught him? Should cops should be able to break into random homes without a warrant and toss the place fishing for evidence, as long as they don't mind a B&E trial? The state's attorney will probably be willing to plead that down to a misdemeanor and probation, since he's so happy about the conviction he got in his other trial. Maybe the cop should be able to grab your briefcase, make a copy of everything on the laptop you're carrying, and then send you and the laptop on their way. No harm, no foul, right? Nope, sorry. There's a damn good reason for the exclusionary rule, and the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine; don't even get me started on the abuses that could be made using state actors, as well.
No, the only way to make correct decisions is to weigh *all* the evidence.
The problem with this sort of internet research arises because the parties may not have the opportunity to rebut this sort of 'evidence' or even to put it into context. Not only is it possible (even likely) that the prosecution and/or defense will never know that a juror introduced his own material, the court and jury have no opportunity to evaluate the credentials of Bob2935 from Wikipedia, nor to cross-examine him. There's no guarantee that the legal or medical terminology and precedents are correctly described or apply within the court's jurisdiction. (What happens if a lawyer from the UK writes an article read by an American juror? Or if a New York lawyer writes an article relied on by a juror from Nevada? What happens if the Wikipedia article is incomplete, describing the basic elements of a crime but not getting back to exceptions and defenses?) Don't forget that it would be trivially easy for attorneys on either side to edit Wikipedia articles to bias them toward their preferred outcome.
With very rare exceptions, jury trials last less than a week, and deliberations tend to run for less than a day. While it's nice to talk about the jury deserving to see "all the evidence", there just isn't time to give juries four years of med school, a degree in forensics, plus get them ready to pass the state bar exam. We necessarily rely on the court and its officers to present evidence responsibly and in appropriate context, because the alternative -- jurors relying on the authority of whatever random subset of information turns up on the first page of Google hits -- is unconscionable. "All the evidence a juror can find in an evening before deliberation" or "All the evidence a juror can find using his smartphone during the trial" are not synonymous with "all the evidence".
~Idarubicin
Good answer I was going to answer this but I don't need to now.
You say that like the juror had no other means of research. She could have requested material from the judge. That is the right way to do it in a trial.
It's not that easy. For one thing, 11 out of the 12 jurors can't do that -- they have to convince the jury foreman to do that for them. And they can't do so anonymously. They have to admit their ignorance to 11 others, and then convince them that it's needed, and face the scorn of those who get irritated because it's going to hold them up for longer. I.e. an immense peer pressure.
And finally, they get one shot. They get a lecture that may or may not be what they wanted, and no chance to ask the expert questions.
Is it better than nothing? Possibly, in some cases. But it's a far cry from every juror being provided by the information they need to make an informed judgment. I.e. jurors often follow the others (groupthink), or let their feelings make the judgment for them. And work twice as hard to get out of jury duty the next time.
This is just a case of a juror collecting info outside of the courtroom. If they had wanted info on rape trauma syndrome, they were supposed to request it from the judge instead of getting it on their own. You could argue whether or not the research tainted the decision, but the fact that they got info from Wikipedia is irrelevant.
Well yes those are two parallel systems with different intents. The legal system believes juries are there as finders of fact within the system. The political system has juries there as a check on the power of judges and prosecutors.
Yes, because clearly making something illegal prevents it from ever happening in the first place.
The fact that your arresting officer is in jail is little consolation if you're in jail too due to improper evidence gathering.
The problem with prosecute the cops is we don't have the notion of an investigating judges. Judges can't initiate prosecutions in the USA. They only thing they can do is thwart the cops / prosecutors.
As exclusionary rule, it would often be worth it to get the information. For example if I'm involved in a lawsuit it might be worth it for me to go to jail for B & E to break into my opposition's lawyer's office and steal the notes to my case.
By appealing to who? Another judge.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
And what if they aren't?
That's appeals courts are for. And if it's bad enough, that's what impeachments and (depending on the venue) judicial elections are for.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Yes you aren't allowed to dispute facts not in question. You need to rule as if the world were flat in this case.
No, because they're just as likely to come up with inaccurate information as accurate.
The solution to this is to encourage juries to bring in the information they find. Then they can be addressed by lawyers from both sides. Encourage jurors to discuss, present evidence, and ask questions. An active and engaged researcher is more likely to get the right answer.
I'd prefer my lawyer do their job and get the judge removed due to bias.
I'd prefer my lawyer do their job and convince the jury of my innocence regardless of the judge's bias.
Would you like a pony too?
I'd prefer the legal system to allow for the fact that judges are human as well, and have built-in safeguards to accommodate same.
I would like that too. Currently there are almost no checks on a judge's power. That's more than a single human should have.
In other words, in this particular case I'd prefer to trust in the system.
It's easier if you do that, yes. But if you actually look at the justice system, it's impossible to justify.
Flawed as it is - as you point out - it's a lot better than trusting in random chance. Which is what the jury doing their own research amounts to.
A good process with random elements will at least average out close to the right answer. A biased process will always lead to the wrong conclusions.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The "Exclusionary rule" is probably the only thing the American judicial system got right. The fear of having evidence excluded is probably a lot more effective as a deterrent for bad cops than the (non)risk of eventual prosecution if caught doing something illegal. The exclusionary rule makes one thing abundantly clear: The end does not justify the means. Never. Just like it should be in a democracy.
Impractical solutions are not solutions. Consider that only one federal judge has been impeached in the last 20 years, and it had nothing to do with his work in court. Look at the world around you, do you really think that not one judge has abused his authority in court in the last 20 years? You really can't expect the State to punish a judge for biasing a case in favor of the State, can you?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The problem with prosecute the cops is we don't have the notion of an investigating judges. Judges can't initiate prosecutions in the USA. They only thing they can do is thwart the cops / prosecutors
I agree. We need much stronger checks on police power in the US.
As exclusionary rule, it would often be worth it to get the information. For example if I'm involved in a lawsuit it might be worth it for me to go to jail for B & E to break into my opposition's lawyer's office and steal the notes to my case.
The exclusionary rule only applies to evidence presented by the police. As a private citizen, you can break the law to get evidence and give it to the police. Then you get prosecuted for B&E and the evidence is still valid in court. We should do the same thing for cops.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The fear of having evidence excluded is probably a lot more effective as a deterrent for bad cops than the (non)risk of eventual prosecution if caught doing something illegal.
The fear of having evidence excluded is no deterrent at all. If you don't do an illegal search there is only one possibility, you will have no evidence. If you do the illegal search, there's at least a chance of getting the evidence admitted. Without a real punishment for cops when they break the law, there is no deterrent for illegal searches.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Imagine you've been falsely accused of child molestation, based on the faulty science of "recovered memories."
But I am pretty sure that MythBusters confirmed recovering memories with hypnosis.
"If I was on trial I sure as hell wouldn't want the jury looking things up on wikipedia"
Well I'd prefer them doing some research rather than being a clueless bunch of fucks who make their decision about my freedom based on a hunch.
As a juror you are only allowed to see what the judge (and law) saw you are allowed to see (as it pertains to the trial).
During pre-trial motions the judge could have ruled that "rape trauma syndrome" (or whatever) is some bullshit psycho-babble; or that only certain interpretations of (whatever) syndrome by the American Psychiatric Association are allowed to be mentioned. It could then be that non-accepted versions are mentioned on the Wikipedia which could taint the interpretation of the jurors. The defense may have one way of defining a syndrome, and the prosecution another: which one is correct? The judge could have decided only one of these is "correct", or a mingling of the two. By looking up the definition, the defendant (who /is/ innocent until proven guilty) could be put in an unfair situation.
This is also why things can be "stricken from the record", or why sometimes jurors are told to disregard certain things that witnesses say.
It's also why the US Fourth Amendment works: while certain facts can be true, they were attained / discovered in inappropriate ways. The use of Wikipedia (in this instance) is gathering of facts by the jurors in an inappropriate way.
Yup. A jury is well within its rights to request more information or a proper definition for something that they don't understand.
It's the responsibility of the lawyers doing the questioning to make sure that when an expert witness uses a professional term to describe something, like "Rape Trauma Syndrome" for example, that that term is properly defined. And if the definition provided is inaccurate or biased, it is the responsibility of the lawyer doing the cross-examination to either ask appropriate questions of the expert witness, or to provide their own expert witness to correct the definition. (and if it's a lawyer using a clinical term like that in his arguments, he's an idiot if he didn't bring in an expert to define it)
If the jurors are unsure of a definition, they have a moral and ethical obligation to ask for clarification. Judges are *well* within their rights to call back that expert witness to define the terms.
In addition to Hymie!'s answer above you can also ask the Baliff who will pass the request on to the judge. The judge will then explain or find a way for it to be explained to you, sometimes needing to confer with defense/prosecution. At no point is doing original research as a juror and deciding for yourselves what sources are admissible in court or not an option. How would you feel as a defendant if someone convicted you because a Wikipedia entry was slightly incorrect that day and your lawyer didn't even know it was influencing the jury?
So, congress should start using wikipedia?
I found the parent's opinion perfectly rational, and the law or court practice in this area to be totally bizarre.
Society is heading towards ever-greater transparency, and the law lags far behind on this as usual. It won't be long before information is available to us on demand wherever we are, and getting informed on the fly will be perceived as normal even in a court room. Disallowing it will quite likely become an infringement of personal freedom suitable only for prison.
On a tech forum like this, crucifying those who are in tune with where the future is going makes Slashdot look really shallow.
Hunches aren't allowed in court. Honestly, I'm glad most of you "educated" people aren't "too dumb to not get out of jury duty". because your kind of ignorance is EXACTLY what we don't need in a courtroom.
Defendant: "Da po-po came in an' busted 'erabody. Man, I was jus' deliverin' a pizza, dat's wut ah do fo a livin'. I ain't got nuttin' ta do wit any 'o dose muthafuckas!"
Juror Viol8: "That guy's a dumbasss. GUILTY!"
Free Martian Whores!
This way, the only things that the jury learns are things that both sides agree are facts. Or, if it is something that is in disagreement, the jury learns that something is not a fact, but a point that one side says is true while the other side says it is false.
Isn't the entire point of a jury to decide what is fact and what is not? A juror that has the wherewithal to do his own research is going to be better prepared to do that.
No, the point of the jury is to weigh the facts presented to them. Which facts are presentable is what the legal system is designed around.
It may be a fact that you had ten grams of marijuana in your trunk, but it was only discovered because your US Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search) rights were violated. Should the jury be allowed to known that fact in your drug trial?
Judges are looking out for the integrity of the trial.
And what if they aren't? What if they're deliberately manipulating the jury through instructions in order to affect the outcome of the case? Remember, judges are just really good lawyers. Lawyers are just really good liars. So judges are really really good liars.
Well, up to this point you were expressing some points worth discussing about what a judge does and why, and the exclusionary rule. Your points were based on pretty blatant ignorance, but still, they were interesting.
Now you're just trolling.
Prosecute the cops who broke the law to obtain evidence and you no longer need the exclusionary rule,
That can't work. It creates a police state. Here is why:
1) Manipulating evidence is a criminal act. So guess who decides whether or not to prosecute? The police. Specifically, the federal/state/local prosecutor. So they would basically have to prosecute themselves.
2) Assume they do prosecute the police. What evidence will be used against them? The evidence held by... the police. Doh! So that evidence will also be manipulated. The cycle continues.
3) Assume they do succeed anyway. Who enforces the sentence? The police. Doh! They will get off for good behavior very easily.
4) But! Let's say this does all work out - it will still happen, because it is worth it. What officer/prosecutor wouldn't be willing to do that if it was the right cause? It is all about the convictions for them.
Ultimately, denying the evidence in court is the only real penalty that works to deter the police and prosecutors from abusing their power. Yes, it sucks because it means an alleged criminal goes free. Sorry.
Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. (at least in Common Law systems... in systems based on the Code Napoléonique, it's guilty until proven innocent).
It's the prosecution's job to gather the information needed to prove the guilt of the defendant. It's the defense's job to challenge the prosecution to prove that information, and to provide explanations for the circumstances that the prosecution asserts.
The Jury can always ask the judge for clarification, not sometimes. But yes, they are barred from going out and getting the information themselves, because any information presented needs to be presented in court so it can be properly challenged by both the prosecution and defense, and it needs to be assured that all jurors have access to the same information.
Which works great when the jurors are actually unbiased and are not trying to push their own agenda.
Not to rain on your parade, but looking at the wikipedia article for "exclusionary rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule) I think your idea is a mistake. Your basically stating that even though the executive broke the law / constitution to get information, we should allow it and then prosecute the offending officer. I can't help but see that as an easy pass to constitutional rights.
If you want the rule of law, then that sword has to cut both ways. Allowing information collected that violated ones constitutional rights REWARDS the state with evidence that shouldn't have even existed.
This will inherently lead to more corruption and ignoring of constitutional rights. Given how often cops are put on paid leave for infractions, this give the PD a way to illegally get information and then give the officer a vacation for doing so. Sweet!
PS - the ironing of using wikipedia in my reply is delicious
So that means it should be okay for cops to torture suspects, and evidence acquired that way should be admissible as long as the cop doesn't mind being tried for assault afterwards?
If I were on a jury in a case where the state had tortured the defendant, I would definitely want to know about it. I don't think you could have a fair trial without the jury knowing that.
Better yet, let's just give the police the ability to make that threat,
Cops routinely make threats. Where do you think the phrase "good cop, bad cop" comes from?
The state's attorney will probably be willing to plead that down
Plea bargains are nothing but a way to punish people for exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to a trial. They should be abolished. I'd further suggest an independent branch of the justice system solely for the purpose of prosecuting police. This would cut down on the conflict of interest you are rightly concerned about.
The problem with this sort of internet research arises because the parties may not have the opportunity to rebut this sort of 'evidence' or even to put it into context.
Instead of prohibiting independent research, how about a rule that requires independent research to be presented to the court? That would allow both sides a chance to provide context, rebuttal, etc. Jurors should also be encouraged to ask questions, and even call witnesses if that's what they need to make a well informed decision.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
While I might tell the judge that I do read it, if I were ever on a jury, I'd make sure to diligently stick with my oath. No wikipedia for me.
So, I honestly don't know if he's guilty or not.
Then he's not. Simple. It's up to the prosecution to make sure that you have the confirmed piece of data that would remove doubt. And you, as a voter, can vote an elected district attorney out of office, or vote whoever appointed an appointed district attorney out of office.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If not, the defendent is innocent. So pay better attention next election.
Free Martian Whores!
...and then people would stop going into law enforcement or arresting people if they were concerned that "grey area" issues would cause them to be jailed themselves. Nice Plan.
Most of the laws of the criminal justice system have nothing to do with guilty people. They are safeguards to help make sure that innocent people don't get convicted. There is a balancing act that takes place and we as a society have determined that its better that we let guilty people go free than convict innocent people. Well thats the theory at least.....
Great point. Slashdot editors have developed this "National Enquirer"-esque obsession with misleading or false headlines to generate clicks.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Declaring a mistrial here was the only effective way to guarantee the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial, including the right to examine the evidence against him.
I feel uncertain about it... I mean, no doubt, the jury should not act to investigate outside of the evidence they are provided with, but I also can't deny the curiosity to learn something. Exactly how much research material should the jury need? Are jury members allowed to read a dictionary when a word they don't know is used?
There's sort of an ethical concern here, also. It is the responsibility of the jury to determine if the evidence and testimony provided to them, not that which they receive outside of the courtroom, is sufficient to reject "not guilty".
Though there is the promise that neither the jury or the individual will be held accountable for their decision, but who can't help but to feel guilty in the end for, say, either letting a possible killer go or imprisoning an innocent person?
We're not just asking people to make a decision, we're asking them to risk the burden of their decision and possibly effect them psychologically. Imagine if a person is put to death based on the testimony of an "expert" who turns out to be a crank, and 10 seconds of browsing Wikifuckingpedia might have revealed that. Sure, we can blame the defense for failing to do so, but I can imagine the guilt I'd feel about it.
Even if we had a way of recording everything that ever happens at any time, there still couldn't be a perfect system of justice. I still wonder, with 99.99% of all scientists ever being alive today, can we really be sure that there isn't a better way of holding a court system that's existed for.. like... a really long time?
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
I get that the trial may now be tainted and that the court wants to keep people from bringing in information from the outside, but this seems a bit much. If the woman had read the Wikipedia entry the day before she went in for jury duty, this wouldn't be an issue at all. The concern here isn't what the person knows or how they know it, but on when they learned it. I think it's a bit strange to mistrial over when a person learned something.
You're missing the point. You're thinking that the end justifies the means, and as history shows, that is not the case. It's a slippery slope that leads into the abyss of corruption, totalitarianism and arbitrariness.
No, I'm not. I'm thinking that if the means are bad, you should punish the person who used those means. That means the cop who broke the law.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Allowing information collected that violated ones constitutional rights REWARDS the state with evidence that shouldn't have even existed.
The state is not an entity you can reward or punish. Only individuals respond to incentives. By providing a deterrent (criminal charges) to the people who would otherwise collect evidence illegally you protect constitutional rights.
The exclusionary rule on the other hand is corrosive to our constitutional rights. It provides no real deterrent, since there are no consequences to an officer who provides illegal evidence. An investigator might as well try to see what he can get admitted. When the exclusionary rule is applied, you're letting 2 criminals off the hook. The person on trial, and the cop who broke the law. This does not encourage people to value their 4th amendment rights.
Given how often cops are put on paid leave for infractions, this give the PD a way to illegally get information and then give the officer a vacation for doing so.
This is another issue. Prosecuting law enforcement in the same system that they work in is an obvious conflict of interest. We need an independent legal system to police the police.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. I have no sympathy for officers who try to see how close to the line they can get, and end up stepping over it. They are criminals.
If you're going to be tough on crime, you have to be even tougher on criminals in uniform. Their position entails trust and power that the average citizen does not have. When that's abused, it's a much worse infraction. Allowing criminals to work the police force because otherwise we'd have more criminals on the street is a cure that's worse than the disease.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Got something other than an ad hominem? Why should we expect any more integrity from the judiciary than any other part of the government?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
So--as a juror...you're aware of the appellate cases that allow a judge to lie to you about definitions and criminal rights then, right? All of them? I mean...I personally have only encountered three so far. But I'm not a legal scholar or someone with a lot of time to go hunting specifically for it. And of course, the decisions tend to be... sealed.
There was a great one where people were for leafleting outside a courthouse... They couldn't actually *try* the person for it (since that would mean telling a jury they were trying someone for talking about jury nullification), so they just threw them in for contempt of court for as long as humanly possible and started stacking charges when the person quite justly reacted by telling the judge to go off themselves.
Oh...no? Well damn. So much for an informed jury.
The problem with the "prosecute the cops who broke the law to obtain evidence and you no longer need the exclusionary rule" is that a prosecutor will not bite the hand that feeds it. If they just put a child rapist in jail because a cop bent a few rules, the prosecutor will NOT stir up trouble by prosecuting the hero cop who just broke the case. Remember that the case that led to the exclusionary rule dealt with a guy who killed a young girl, wrapped her body up in a rug, and threw her away around Christmastime. He requested a lawyer, but the cop started guilt-tripping the defendant while driving to the lawyer in violation of Miranda. The guy gave away the location of the corpse, and was convicted based on that fact.
Do you really think any prosecutor in the entire world would file charges against a cop who didn't beat the suspect but rather just asked him to bring some peace to his victim's family? What's your recourse if the prosecutor refuses to charge the cop, sue the prosecutor? It's called sovereign immunity and decisions to charge and not charge are absolutely immune.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
It happens all the time with things that the legal system considers settled matters. Fingerprints fit this mold, recovered memories do not. Not to mention that if a judge denies the admission of evidence, and if either the prosecution or the defense feels the judge is wrong, the system provides the appeals system precisely to ensure that an individual judges bias can be reversed.
You seem to forget the opposite can also happen - the jury can find a tinfoil hat site that claims that recovered memories are valid and base their verdict on that.
This whole thread has attracted quite a bit of moderation, but I don't want parent's comment to get overlooked. Either through ignorance (public defender...) or malice, the defense doesn't always give juries everything they need to make a just decision.
Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning Eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness
Only if there is a clear, documented, irrefutable record of what resources the jurors used for their research that both the prosecution and defense counsels are able to familiarize themselves with for the court proceedings.
That people on /. who support Wikileaks so strongly (and with it the freedom of information... no matter the cost) would be against somebody "going against the system" and trying to find out information on their own.
These must be completely different people posting, because somebody who favors WL would be inclined to say that you shouldn't trust what the judge / etc are saying because they are in reality forcing their own agenda (or is only the state dept capable of doing that?).
Just want to point out a touch of hypocrisy that seems to be evident here.
Isn't the entire point of a jury to decide what is fact and what is not?
The jury's business is to make a decision based on the evidence presented in court.
Evidence that is - for the most part - open to public view. Evidence can be seen, discussed, and openly debated by all the participants in the trial.
Without that, what you have is a Star Chamber, answerable to no one.
As if the truth could be prejudicial.
The truth can be prejudicial.
In the old days, it was called "waving the bloody shirt."
What you want from the jury is the emotional response that clouds all reason.
But we already have a deterrent for when people break the law. Prosecute the cops who broke the law to obtain evidence and you no longer need the exclusionary rule, and so you no longer need to control what the jury knows. So you have better behaved cops, and better informed juries. It's a win for everyone.
The robot, Asimov wrote, was logical but not reasonable.
Historically, the cop was never prosecuted, never convicted on any substantial charge.
It happens all the time with things that the legal system considers settled matters.
That's the problem. It shouldn't be up to the "legal system" to determine what settled science is. It should be up to the jury. Fingerprints for instance are not settled science. Ask any two fingerprint experts what the false positive rate for fingerprinting is. You'll get two different answers, if you can even get an answer out of them.
Also consider Breathalyzers(TM). The output of a Breathalyzer is dependent on a partition coefficient that varies from person to person. Try bringing that issue up in court. A judge won't even let you bring that question to the table.
This is standard practice for the legal system. These kinds of abuses cannot even be described as corruption, it's business as usual. This is why we need a dramatic rebalancing of the power relationships in the legal system.
You seem to forget the opposite can also happen - the jury can find a tinfoil hat site that claims that recovered memories are valid and base their verdict on that.
This is why we should encourage juries to bring the material they are considering to court for discussion. Keep in mind that nothing is stopping juries from doing their own research today, the rules only stop the jurors from talking about it.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
a prosecutor will not bite the hand that feeds it.
Which is why we need special prosecutors to prosecute the police. Prosecuting the police in the same justice system they work for is an obvious conflict of interest.
It's called sovereign immunity and decisions to charge and not charge are absolutely immune.
Sovereign immunity is one of many legal principles that should be abolished.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
-Different Anonymous Coward here
We have settled sciences to allow things to proceed. If every case had to re-argue whether fingerprinting was valid, the criminal justice system would be more backed up than it already is. Prosecutors and defenders would appeal ANYTHING that was harmful to their case, and so on.
I'm not saying to expedite things for the sake of closing cases, but this does keep things moving. If the defense or prosecution feels the use of these aspects is invalid, they can appeal.
And, I'll reiterate: I sure as HELL do not want jurors having access to information that they are only 'encouraged' to reveal to the prosecution/defense. I want that information on-the-record, no 'ifs', 'ands', or 'buts'.
This has nothing at all to do with Wikipedia, it has everything to do with the actions of a juror who could have gotten that information elsewhere.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
That can't work. It creates a police state. Here is why:
Failure to prosecute the police for their crimes creates a police state.
1) Manipulating evidence is a criminal act. So guess who decides whether or not to prosecute? The police. Specifically, the federal/state/local prosecutor. So they would basically have to prosecute themselves.
Obviously we need special prosecutors to avoid this obvious conflict of interest.
2) Assume they do prosecute the police. What evidence will be used against them? The evidence held by... the police. Doh! So that evidence will also be manipulated. The cycle continues.
The evidence in question is already held by the court.
3) Assume they do succeed anyway. Who enforces the sentence? The police. Doh! They will get off for good behavior very easily.
4) But! Let's say this does all work out - it will still happen, because it is worth it. What officer/prosecutor wouldn't be willing to do that if it was the right cause? It is all about the convictions for them.
So you're basically saying here that we should never prosecute police for crimes of any sort because the system is stacked in their favor anyway.
Ultimately, denying the evidence in court is the only real penalty that works to deter the police and prosecutors from abusing their power.
As I've said elsewhere, denying the evidence is no deterrent at all. If you don't do an illegal search you have no evidence. If you do the illegal search, there's a chance that it will get admitted. So you're better off doing the illegal search than not. Without real negative consequences to the person breaking the law, there is no deterrent at all.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I sure as HELL do not want jurors having access to information that they are only 'encouraged' to reveal to the prosecution/defense. I want that information on-the-record, no 'ifs', 'ands', or 'buts'.
Then you're going to have to sequester every jury. Jurors are going to do their own research. The only question is how much of it do the attorneys get to address. If you punish them for admitting to do research, that's none.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
To me, this seems not dissimilar to the "Air Force blocks New York Times" story. Clearly they want our juries passing verdicts on fellow citizens to be the dumbest, least informed, least inquisitive, most sheepish people we can find.
Can they use a dictionary? Probably not, I'd bet.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Well I'd prefer them doing some research rather than being a clueless bunch of fucks who make their decision about my freedom based on a hunch.
Think about that for a minute. "Doing some research" does not mean you're well informed or otherwise any less clueless for the effort. Consider all the psuedo-science and crack-pot conspiracy sites out there - and the people who swear those are The Truth They Don't Want You to Know.
I would disagree. The fact that there is punishment for illegal actions in a courtroom, does not guarantee a fair trial, which is what it all is about - to have a fair and not biased trial. A jury who takes any information regarding a trial outside the courtroom, can be a biased jury. A person before becoming a jury is examined by both sides to check whether he/she is objective, and it should be this way till the end of the case.
It is not perfect, because in this case a fair trial strongly depends on the judge to provide proper information, and also on more less equal level of both the prosecutor and the defendant, but it is better than having a public opinion to direct a trial.
Regarding this particular case, it is not so simple, because we are talking about the word definition, but still a jury should follow proper channels to obtain this information. Ideally would be if in such a case, both the defendant and the prosecutor were informed about it, and were able to get familiar with the information provided to juries.
Here's the problem. This is a *trial*. That means any assertion that bears on the outcome can be challenged by either side either to its accuracy, relevance or interpretation.
Suppose they jury convicts the defendant based on this wikipedia article. The defendant doesn't even *know* this has been brought into deliberations, and has no chance of challenging it.
I've just been through this. As you deliberate, you can submit questions. These are debated in the courtroom by the prosecutor and defense attorney in front of the judge as you wait in the jury room. Then they bring you out and the judge provides you with a narrowly worded answer. We asked a number of questions about the law and the specific criteria the prosecution had to meet in order for us to convict. We didn't ask any CSI type evidence questions. I suppose if we had, they'd have been debated, the judge would have called us in and most likely told us the question was not relevant. If both sides agreed to it, I suppose she might have read us a short, carefully worded statement.
Let me tell you, this is very, very hard. You *don't* have all the information you'd *like* to have. What you have is the information the two sides have brought up and which the judge has admitted into the case. Some jurors create all kinds of cock-eyed theories. In the case I was recently on, speculations about how much force would be needed to produce bruises of a certain kind. It's very natural in that case to want to do a little independent research, but even if you get *good* information, you aren't necessarily qualified to apply that information. If that information (a) helped either side and (b) could be explained in a way that laymen could understand without going astray, it would have been brought up.
We were very frustrated by things we weren't allowed to see, and speculation about them was rife. Why didn't the prosecution call such and so as a witness? Why didn't the defense? Why couldn't we see the police report? What would happen to the defendant if he was found guilty?
The judge was kind enough to address us afterward and answer many of these questions. We weren't allowed to see the police report because it contained the officer's opinion, and couldn't be cross-examined by the defense. Instead we got the officer himself on the stand, although his memory was far from perfect. Each side managed to slip in bits of the police report by cross examining the witness under the pretense of impeaching their credibility. "You say such and so. I'd like you to look at this statement you made to the police. Is what you just testified consistent with what you told the police?" etc.
Many things we'd have liked to know about the defendant the *judge* didn't know. They hadn't been brought up by the prosecution, probably because they'd have no legal bearing, and even the judge wasn't allowed to bias herself by doing independent research. Likewise the judge didn't know why one side or the other declined to call a certain witness, and was not allowed to pry into that.
One of the most difficult tasks in the jury room was wrestling with the various castles in the air that some jurors spun. You go into the jury room with the information presented at trial and the judges instructions as to the law. You also bring your experience and prejudices, because short of brain surgery there's no way to separate you from those. Letting the jurors bring in *new* information that *neither* side has had a chance to examine only increases the tendency of the jury to fall down the rabbit hole. You end up reaching a conclusion is largely a matter of giving up on all the pet theories you've generated. Out of sheer exhaustion, you circle back to the actual *evidence* presented and the criteria the prosecution is required to meet. If every day a different juror brought in a different wikipedia article creating yet another wrinkle in the deliberations, the fun would never stop.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
At least then it would be part of the record of the case, and you would have an opportunity to appeal to a higher court and argue that the science was not settled and that the lower court erred by preventing your defense team from challenging it.
But if a juror can just look something up in Wikipedia on their cell phone and nobody knows, then its NOT part of the record of the case and you might not even know about it. That completely bypasses the "due process" that is essential for a fair trial, and the cornerstone of the modern justice system.
At least then it would be part of the record of the case, and you would have an opportunity to appeal to a higher court and argue that the science was not settled and that the lower court erred by preventing your defense team from challenging it.
Fat lot of good that does you.
But if a juror can just look something up in Wikipedia on their cell phone and nobody knows, then its NOT part of the record of the case and you might not even know about it. That completely bypasses the "due process" that is essential for a fair trial, and the cornerstone of the modern justice system.
I agree! The problem is that prohibition never works. People will research anyway and not tell anyone. Legitimize the research and at least you'll hear about it.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Perhaps they make their decision based on all the evidence that's presented to them by both sides? It's not like they just form the jury and then ask for a verdict.
The problem with prosecuting police officers is there are many gray areas in the law and you don't want police officers trying to get exact wording of a law and what case law is while they're out in the field.
For example, my borther-in-law is a police officer and during his training one of this training officer made the comment you never know what will stand in court. He had just gotten back from court in which he pulled over a car for tossing the cigarette butts out the window. He had been following it for awhile as there had been some suspicious actions, but not enough to act on (I believe he was a state trooper on the interstate) This was a wilderness area, so it wasn't completely unreasonable to enforce the law as it was meant to prevent forest fires.
In court, the defense argued that the law didn't specify the type of ashes, so it wasn't clear that it was illegal to toss cigarette butts out the window. It was upheld by the judge who throw out the trunk load full of marijuana in the trunk.
Should that police officer be punished? I certainly think not as he definitely acted in good faith. He waited until he thought he had a valid reason to stop the suspect. I'm biased as I would have ruled if it doesn't specify what type of ashes can't be thrown out the window, then all ashes would be illegal; in terms of enforcing the law I would ask prosecutors to use discretion. Since it was in a section of law aiming at trying to prevent forest fires, I would have thought ciggerette ashes were reasonable and thus the stop was reasonable and when the officer smelt pot the search was reasonable.
Also, in terms of limiting what a jury knows, what about cases where evidence isn't handled correctly? They spent about two years trying to get an arrest warrant for my neighbor. The first time they searched his house, his girl friend and him were in a fight, she left, and as she was leaving he fired a gun. Due to the gun shot, neigbhors called the police. The neighbor tried to flee, but was too messed up so he crashed his motorcycle in the drive way.
The police couldn't act on anything as they couldn't prove he had fired the shot, the girl friend had fled so they couldn't see if she would press charges etc. Since he was bleeding, they asked him if it was safe for him to re-enter his house or was there some one in there who could harm him. He replied he didn't know (remember he was messed up and had just been in a wreck) so the police then were obligated to search his house (reasonable as they should ensure he was safe). Since they had reason to enter, they can seize anything in plain sight. After hauling out five trunk-loads full of illegal drugs and weapons, they tried getting a search warrant. They chain of custody got screwed up, and they were unable to. About two monthes later, they were able get an arrest warrant when two people collide on his door step and the one leaving dropped crack on the sidewalk and from there they got an arrest warrant.
When arrested should the evidence from the first search where the chain of custody was screwed up be admissable? The law says no. IN this case, sure I want the guy locked up, but that's a scary president to set for allowing other illegal obtained evidence from being presented. People won't care it was illegally obtained and will be more likely to convict the guy. Your solution of punishing the police, do you think they should be prosecuted for messing up the chain of custody? Its a bad mistake, but if it was just accidently signing the wrong date that's awefully harsh.
Well I'd prefer them doing some research rather than being a clueless bunch of fucks who make their decision about my freedom based on a hunch.
Well I'd prefer they do research from scholastic, peer-reviewed sources. Even that can be subject to interpretation. Wikipedia is good for general information, but not something you want to rely on. Anyone can decide to edit the article and include something false, intentionally or unintentionally. Other sites can also be unreliable or biased, but this isn't the place to discuss that.
The judge can provide additional information, when asked. Jurors may look something up in the wrong place. For example, the definition of rape is different in Webster's Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary, dictionary.com, urbandictionary.com, a medical dictionary, an encyclopedia, state law, local statute, etc. Likewise, the information on the term she looked up may have been one-sided or directed towards a specific audience or situation.
I'm not sure about the second part, but the first bit is absolutely spot on. Protecting justice against a corrupt establishment is exactly what juries are for. This seems to have been forgotten
FGD 135
Yes, if it weren't for Wikipedia, there's no way she could have found similar information about the subject and printed it out.
Even worse yet, is the practice of illegally searching, then when you have the evidence making a paper trail back to the evidence through a legal channel. It is like looking at the answer sheet to a test, then finding the page numbers that have that information so that when you get called out for cheating, you can show where you looked the information up.
Of course, the big problem isn't the illegal gathering of actual criminal behavior. The big problem is the illegal actions taken against people when there is no illegal action on the victims part, and when the illegal action taken by the police are worse than the crime they are investigating.
You are right regarding the exclusionary rule. I looked it up after your post. Thanks for the correction. I don't agree with the law but 49 states (Florida excluded) you got it correct.
Plea bargains are nothing but a way to punish people for exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to a trial. They should be abolished. I'd further suggest an independent branch of the justice system solely for the purpose of prosecuting police. This would cut down on the conflict of interest you are rightly concerned about.
Exactly! Pea bargains are pure and pure corruption. When you tell someone say, that confession to a crime you may or may not have committed will give you one year of imprisonment, but declaring your innocence will get you 10, they have given up any pretense of justice.
and, of course, your appeal team have much less to work with, if your first team weren't competent enough to 'preserve' issues for appeal, or if you live in some screwed-up place where items of 'fact' are not up for challenge after the conclusion of the original trial, even if they can be proved to be objectively wrong.
FGD 135
The jury was deliberating on two charges, found the defendant guilty of one, acquitted of the other.
What I find interesting is that the judge ruled it a mistrial, but only the guilty charge is being retried because of the acquittal. Retrying the acquittal might invoke double jeopardy ... or might require the judge prove the acquittal illegitimate.
Which begs the question of how one jury ruling can be illegitimate and the other legitimate, eh?
Assuming we're talking about a criminal trial, then you find "not guilty".
That's what you should do, yes, but it's not what really happens.
My wife was on a murder jury where everyone agreed that the only witness they didn't think was lying was the medical examiner, and there were several unaddressed questions. The best she could do was to talk them down to second degree.
So guess who decides whether or not to prosecute? The police.
Well, Internal Affairs. Unfortunately, we've all seen so many cop shows that we're conditioned to think of Internal Affairs as the enemy, when it should be seen as the single most noble public-service position there is.
And a trial against a CEO with a jury of CEO's? How do you think that will work? In this country we consider all people as equals, and the definition of "peer" can't be biased with "industry standard" ideas.
Well I'd prefer them doing some research rather than being a clueless bunch of fucks who make their decision about my freedom based on a hunch.
When I was on a jury a few years back, we were specifically told that we were FORBIDDEN from doing our own research of any kind. We were told to blindly accept any definitions or facts spoken by the prosecution as coming directly from the mouth of [insert local deity name here].
The judge ... made this demand WITHOUT any detailed discussion of its value or history. When I specifically asked for that, the judge flatly denied my request.
And why the hell not? The judge is not there teach the history of law, or engage in any "detailed discussion of its value".
I'm not inclined to fault this woman for what she did, even though she was more surreptitious than I was.
So you also condone it when others break the rules, and seek to further excuse yourself by claiming that others were "more surreptitious". (For what it's worth, your actions sounded more surreptitious to me).
I would rather have an honest but ignorant juror who does as the judge instructs, than an arrogant ass who wants to debate the value of laws, disrespects the judges instructions, and breaks whatever rules he doesn't like.
So, your wife disagreed with the decision but accepted it anyway? That is irresponsible.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
Having never actually served on a jury, how exactly would a juror go about learning what a phrase means if everyone was acting like it's supposed to be common knowledge? Do they just, like, raise their hand and ask?
David Morgan-Marr (creative force behind Irregular Webcomic and Darths & Droids) has an account of service on a jury in which the jury asks for clarification on a point. It's quite an interesting read in total, but the sections regarding jury confusion are found on page 12 (at the end of witness 26 and end of witness 29), page 19 (most of witness 50), page 20 (not much happened with the jury that day) and concluding at the top of page 22.
While this jury trial occurred in Austrailia, the basic tenets are the same.
In this country we consider all people as equals
As long as those with money can buy better defense than those without money, that's so not true.
Remember that the jury system isn't intended to be a game where the side who is most convincing wins, but to determine the truth. I believe jurors who understand at least the basics of a subject matter are more likely to arrive at and accept the truth.
But jurors in the same field may have already been presented with similar ethical dilemmas and have already made their choices on what to believe- or worse yet, were forced into such choices, and have come to accept it as correct over time. That is bias that needs to be eliminated from the jury.
Imagine you've been falsely accused of child molestation, based on the faulty science of "recovered memories." Would you want the opportunity to challenge the evidence against you through cross-examination, or would you prefer it if the jury could just pull up some article written by a quack and be swayed by it, with no chance for you or your defense to explain the basic fallacies it contained?
So any quack, that believes in recovered memories should be banned from jury duty? I mean their personal opinions on a subject could taint the verdict.
Maybe we should steal babies and keep them locked in cells with no access to any information, except that allowed by the courts and just use them as a jury. The point of a jury is to bring a cross-section of society with differing life experience and allow them, to decide if a crime has been committed, not just that the law was broken, but that in the specific instance not only that the law was broken, but in breaking that law a crime was committed.
So any quack, that believes in recovered memories should be banned from jury duty? I mean their personal opinions on a subject could taint the verdict.
Unless they lie when first interviewed, the "quack" probably wouldn't be allowed on the jury in the first place. Either the judge or the defense attorney would reject them.
See: http://www.mistakesweremadebutnotbyme.com/
http://books.google.com/books?id=vZkGNIpAsTEC
This book on "cognitive dissonance" and "progressive desensitization" has a section on how some police offers go bad step-by-step to the point where they are regularly planting evidence on people they are "sure" are guilty (which becomes more and more everybody). It also has stuff on why police interrogations are often used to produce false confessions, where everything someone says or does is taken as confirming evidence of guilt, since no one would be arrested unless they were guilty, right? They point to a whole standard manual for interpretign interrogations that way.
http://books.google.com/books?id=vZkGNIpAsTEC&q=interrogation#v=snippet&q=interrogation&f=false
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Jurors before becoming jurors could have read that article in Wikipedia and had their opinions affected. They could also have read lots of other information previously. Why should a line be draw after they become jurors? I can maybe understand the issue about press about the case, but even there, should not a jury be instructed on how to come to a fair decision? It's supposed to be juror of peers, and now peers have access to the internet...
Here is what most judges really don't want jurors to know about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
http://fija.org/
Jurors on cases about questionable laws like non-violent drug offenses and copyright violation need to known that a whole reason juries exists is so that "peers" can decide the law is unjust and refuse to convict under it. This can and has been abused to not convict for racist crimes, but none-the-less, a main point for the right of a jury trial is so juries can nullify laws. Otherwise, why not let the experienced judge decide?
If a bunch of "peers" don't think a "crime" like smoking marijuana or sharing music online was substantially wrong, then the whole point of a jury is so peers can say that by refusing to convict. But judges will supposedly elimiate any juror who knows about this concept of jury nullification.
Should a judge *not* informing juries of "jurry nullification" be a real reason for mistrial in our society with endless conflicting and often selectively enforced laws? Defendents in cases involving unfair or unwise laws are being deprived of their constitutional rights in that sense.
And you get juries who say essentially, "We had no choice but to convict and send someone to jail for life for a third strike of being caught smoking dope, even though no one on the jury thought that was just or fair -- because the judge told us we had no choice."
Fom Wikipedia: "Recent court rulings have contributed to the prevention of jury nullification. A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.[35] In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify.[36] In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction that "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification."[37] In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b).[38] The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. Further, as officers of the court, attorneys have sworn an oath to uphold the law, and are considered by bar associations to be ethically prohibited from directly advocating for jury nullification.[39]"
The above could be read as a systematic denial of justice... Which may help explain part of why the USA has so many more people in prison per capita than any other industrialzed country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Should that police officer be punished? I certainly think not as he definitely acted in good faith
Without legal authorization for his actions, he is nothing but a thug with a gun harassing motorists. He should be treated as such. Ask his victim whether he cares about "good faith".
If you wish to provide a good faith defense for all criminal defendants, then the officer should be entitled to one too. But as long as ignorance of the law is no defense for us, it should not be one for them.
When arrested should the evidence from the first search where the chain of custody was screwed up be admissable?
Breaking the chain of custody does not retroactively make a legal search illegal. So I wouldn't try the officers involved for tresspassing or anything. The jury should be made aware that the evidence exists, but they should be aware of the broken chain of custody, and instructed that it is reasonable to doubt its veracity.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Wikipedia, or a hunch. You seriously think those are the only two choices? You think they attorneys in the case didn't put in their best effort to present all the relevant evidence to the jury? It is exceedingly rare that a jury relies on an uninformed "hunch".
If I'm on trial for something, I want my attorney present whenever the jury goes investigating on their own or looking up extra information. That is my right as an accused. If the jury makes a decision based on wikipedia, then it violates my rights to see the all evidence against me.
This is NOT the same as keeping the jury in the dark. If they need to know something they can ask. Yes, it may be inconvenient, but if I'm on trial then my rights are vastly more important than some inconvenience of a juror. If you ware watching Judge Judy then you can do all the back seat analysis you want, but when you're on a jury you damn well better take it seriously!
I'd want my attorney to present evidence that recovered memories are bullshit. It don't want a jury doing this on their own, they'd probably get it wrong.
You are blissfully and utterly clueless as to how the legal system works. So clueless I can't even begin to educate you.
That sound you heard is my point whooshing over your head. Juries shouldn't be examining outside material at all because they are bound to consider only the facts placed before them by the prosecution and defense - not the facts and or opinions of some random website. The system requires that all facts be presented in open court so that *both sides* have a chance to examine and support or refute them.
No, juries are not allowed to do their own research - that's the whole point of the article you imbecile.
You really can't expect the State to punish a judge for biasing a case in favor of the State, can you?
br Sure. That's what appeals courts are for, and thats why cases are overturned, and why judges sometimes have to recuse themselves, or are censured, or end up resigning when they're caught in a conflict of interest. We don't have many impeachments because the threat of them causes lots of corrections earlier in the process.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
well if every single judge up the chain believes it, chances are the jury is going to believe it too. Judges are usually smarter than jurors
Exactly, because then either the information is correct, or there's a record of it being wrong making an appeal.
"'I know you didn't do this on purpose,' Kaplan told Mason."
If that's the case, then she did it because she's a goddamn idiot. Actually, the fact that she looked up a legal definition on wiki instead of asking the court pretty much confirms it.
"seeing how jury pay has been the same for years"
Payment for jury duty is meant as a nominal stipend, not a replacement for your job. Jury duty is, as implied right in the name, an expected duty of all American citizens.
I just finished serving on a jury in a long federal trial. After the verdict (guilty), we jurors started furiously googling and sharing information. Had we done so during the trial, there is no way that the trial could have been fair. We found photos of perp walks, youtube video of property seizure, etc. Yes, this is prejudicial, since it makes the defendants look guilty whether they are or not.
We also found newspaper articles whose authors and sources were not under oath. It would be improper to give these any weight at all. Just to prove the point, the AP story on our trial misstated a key number in the case by several orders of magnitude. Moreover, if it becomes okay for jurors to rely on press stories, then there will be nothing to stop the prosecution or defense from planting stories favorable to themselves.
As Ted Olson recently said to Tony Perkins on TV, "A witness stand is a lonely place to lie." Why accept information from any other source?
I think your entire response boils down to one thing:
So you're basically saying here that we should never prosecute police for crimes of any sort because the system is stacked in their favor anyway.
I never said anything of the sort! I said that it rarely works - which is part of why we need to deny them the evidence as well. (That is only part of the reason - the other part is because illegally obtained evidence is too likely to be fabricated.)
If you don't do an illegal search you have no evidence. If you do the illegal search, there's a chance that it will get admitted. So you're better off doing the illegal search than not. Without real negative consequences to the person breaking the law, there is no deterrent at all.
That's exactly what I said! Now, on to the relevany points.
Failure to prosecute the police for their crimes creates a police state.
Then we have a police state, because such prosecutions are rare. When they happen, they almost never win. (Which, is part of why it rarely happens... repeat)
Obviously we need special prosecutors to avoid this obvious conflict of interest.
touché.
The evidence in question is already held by the court.
It doesn't work that way. Evidence against police has a habit of vanishing. Example: In Baltimore, there was a rape case in recent years where the officer's condom vanished from police lock-up after being admitted as evidence. The case was dropped due to lack of evidence.) Those darned condom thieves! Are they the same gnomes that steal my socks?