Slashdot Mirror
Should Smartphones Be Allowed In Court?
coondoggie writes "Federal courts have been debating how much freedom users of smartphones and portable wireless devices in general should have in a federal courthouse. Some say they should be banned outright, while others say they should be allowed, but their use curtailed (PDF). Unregulated use of smartphones has resulted in mistrials, exclusion of jurors and fines in some case."
Ban the thing and surround the whole stage with a strong Faraday cage and install repeater for doctor pager. The court is supposed be a spectacle that stands out of time. It is not something of the common man, it should be grand, imposing and restrictive to ensure a certain level of deference.
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
I have a friend who practiced in the U.S. District Court in Mass. Early on he had a Windows Mobile phone, which of course he kept his schedule. When the Court was banning cell phones, he would have to get permission from the court so that he could check his schedule on his phone, as did opposing counsel.
In Los Angeles, they would ban cell phones with cameras for a while, for non-attorneys. This was stopped between 2008 and 2010. I suspect that since most people have their schedules on their phones, it would make it very hard to schedule any proceedings if phones were banned.
As far as jurors, there must be some restriction on information access/communications during the period that they are on a jury (as opposed to being in the pool). Not only so that they are untainted, but also so they are undistracted.
Camera Phones don't take pictures, people take pictures.
Fight Spammers!
Of course, what we get in the US is a predominance of both of these sorts of jurors. They watch a lot of TV and are sure they have stumbled into something interesting. Or they are there because there isn't anything else interesting to do at the rest home. Worse, they didn't want to serve, couldn't think of a way out of it and now are there and are very, very hostile about it - he must be guilty or he wouldn't have been arrested, can we go now?
The smartphone is of use to both these sorts of people and in neither case is it useful or helpful but is actually very, very damaging to the system. And if you happen to be the guy on trial with 10 of these sorts of jurors you are going to be very angry at the guilty verdict.
Perhaps they should spend that idle time pondering the importance of the decisions they will be making and the impacts those decisions will have on the various parties involved -- and taking stock of their own capacity to be objective, their own internalized biases, and personal foibles, in order to offer a fairer verdict at the end of the process. Instead of playing Angry Birds. Just a thought.
I'm pretty sure allowing jurors to watch "Fox News" and it's ilk would constitute ample grounds for a mistrial. You don't think media can sway people's opinion? If it can't, then the $1 trillion a year companies are spending on television advertising is a complete waste of money...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
So, you think it's okay for jurors to, on their own, access information pertinent to the case, without giving the defense or prosecution an opportunity to examine that information and discuss it in court? You think people should be convicted based on secret information their attorneys didn't even know about? Nice...
So are you saying they should throw out all rules for evidence such as speculation, hearsay, conjecture, etc.?
Jurors are charged with making a ruling based on the evidence presented not the "evidence" they can Google.
Problem with that is that our culture is gaining a sense of entitlement thanks to the "always connected" fad. How do you convince people that it's wrong to use tech in courtrooms when everything else is telling them that it's their God-given right to have 24-7 access to Twitter? I too believe in treating the disease before the symptoms, but this goes much deeper than - as one poster put it - jurors playing Angry Birds. People first need to realise that just because they can do something doesn't always mean they should, which may sound like common sense but seems to be lacking in the general population.
Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
The whole system of jury trial is based upon the assumption that 12 jurors collectively make a pretty wise choice. By having a judge and attorneys filter the arguments and evidence to which a jury is exposed, they're substituting their own wisdom for that of jurors. Especially when judges refuse to allow defense lawyers to suggest juries consider jury-nullification of a law to be a legitimate exercise of their powers.
That being said, I would suggest that jurors also be given an opportunity to present questions to the lawyers. For example, "I heard on Fox News that the defendant was seen walking around with a gun after the murder. You never mentioned a gun. Was Fox News incorrect on this point?"
I'd say in general, I don't like elitist tyranny that judges can impose over juries, and I'm looking for ways to undo it.
Whether the judge controls the information is beside the point. The point is, the defense needs the opportunity to address the information in court. I don't understand how replacing one potential problem with a much, much bigger problem helps anything.
Yeah, but after 5 minutes thought, then what?
It's not really a surprise no one wants to be a juror, you're treated almost like the prisoner in some case, cut off from the world and with shitty pay to boot.
We need to realize that it's not practical to keep people in the dark and start designing trials to counter this.
Either that, or we need to keep doing what we do now: Expect jurors to act like adults, respect the rule of law, and obey the instructions of the judge. And if they don't, they're dismissed, fined, and the defendant is potentially entitled to a new trial because his defense was poisoned by a misbehaving juror.
So once again, design a new form of trial where jurors' biases and ignorance (which are, of course, society's biases and ignorance) get addressed.
In all the times I've been called as a juror (and it happens every year without fail), I've found the current legal system is actually pretty good at this. Do you have experience otherwise?
Breakfast served all day!
Kind of sad, though. I mean, are you absolutely certain that you will never stand trial before a jury, for anything? And if not, who would you like to be on that jury?
Me, I honestly don't have a problem with sitting on a jury. Some people treat it like they're being drafted to Vietnam. It's not like that at all (and it happens to me every single year, so I know). It's a pain in the ass, but it's actually pretty interesting, and in the end it's seldom much of a drain on your time. Especially a criminal jury; criminal trials are usually short, and often last just a day or two. You're much more likely to get called for a strong-arm robbery or a drug sales charge than for a murder. (Civil trials, on the other hand, are a totally different matter, and can last months -- I dread the times I'm called for those.)
So to my previous point, fuck's sake -- these people who are on trial for these criminal charges, they're people just like you. A lot of them are scumbag criminals, but some of them didn't even do what they're charged with. This is the essence of our jury system: It's not some elitist racket designed to let people like you dodge being on jury duty. Rather, it's designed so that people like you will sit on juries so that people like you don't go to prison for breaking laws they never broke.
Breakfast served all day!