Mistrial By iPhone: Juries' Web Research Upends Trials

New York Times:

Last week, a juror in a big federal drug trial in Florida admitted to the judge that he had been doing research on the case on the Internet, directly violating the judge's instructions and centuries of legal rules. But when the judge questioned the rest of the jury, he got an even bigger shock.

Eight other jurors had been doing the same thing. The federal judge, William J. Zloch, had no choice but to declare a mistrial, wasting eight weeks of work by federal prosecutors and defense lawyers.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[research]

Bunch of lawyers on this thread, trying to redefine "public" as in

"Fair and Public Trial",

to mean no public contact or knowledge about the public sphere for Jurors.

The constitution requires a public trial.

[suec03]

Public trial only means that the proceedings are open for the public and the media to attend as an audience, to ensure that the proceedings in open court appear fair to a lay observer--to prevent the judge from conducting a kangaroo court. It was a reaction to the "star chamber" type proceedings sometimes used in England. To enter the well area of the court ahead of the bar (railing), you must be a judge, clerk, bailiff, witness, juror, plaintiff, defendant, or attorney. Lay members of the public are allowed on the jury only to have the case tried by an impartial panel of your "peers." They are not empaneled to be investigators.

[research]

Those are old English laws. Somehow our revolution against Britain still left us with their corrupt legal traditions. The question is should the jurors have the right to look up things on their own. Jurors are citizens in good standing. What crime have they been charged with that the punishment should include disconnection from the public network? Does a citizen lose all rights when they become jurors? Doesn't sound like what the founding fathers would want, does it? Jurors have become pawns of the lawyers and judges, under house arrest for the duration of the trial.

Perhaps a compromise: Let the jurors surf the net, but ask them to turn in their histories for both sides to see.

You lawyers have yet to provide an example of a miscarriage of justice caused by Too much information, Whereas examples of too little info causing the wrong judgment are plentiful.

[the-lexicon]

Why, as a jurist, would you ever need to do your own independent research?

There's only two answers in the situation here...A) you feel that the prosecution's information was insufficie­nt...then instead of doing research, send back the not guilty result. The prosecutor did not do his job, it isn't your job to fix his job. In a way, you DO fix his job, because he will start bringing better cases, if he runs the risk of losing because of bad research.

The second case, is that you feel that the defense didn't present it's case well enough. In that case, don't research it, send back not guilty, or ask the judge for more info.

If you feel that justice is being miscarried because of missing information from the defense, then the defendant didn't receive competent representation, and you hang the jury and get a mistrial. That's the PROPER outcome.

THere's really nevrer a reason to do your OWN research!

lexicon

[research]

Pure BS. go to the Informed Jury web site, and learn their arguments.

I have heard of many miscarriages of justice from the jury not have all the information, I have not heard of ONE from to much information.

I research the internet before I buy a stereo, but I should issue a verdict without at least as much research?

Prosecutors want to become DA's, They regularly withhold evidence.

Ignorance is Good?

[the-lexicon]

Your form of ignorance is not good.

You have this very simplistic understanding of the problem. That's fine...you­'re probably quite young.

You cite one source...t­hese "informed Jury" folks...wh­o are actually drug legalization activists.

Not that there's anything wrong with THAT. I can't for the life of me figure out why I can kill myself with vodka, but not with pot. ah, me.

Again, I'll say it slow and simple so even you can understand. ACQUIT or MISTRIAL if the information is not complete, but DO NOT go off on your own. Ask the court for more information on the law itself. Ask any damn question you want in deliberations.

Then again, if your aim is to intentionally cause a mistrial, by all means, google it all up.

lexicon

[S1m0n]

How about "You like to think for yourself, and don't like being told what you're allowed to know or not know?" It's not like anyone volunteers to be on a jury.

[UnknownSoldier]

Maybe they should have Jury school and explain the importance of evidence presented in the court.

[suec03]

They play a video about this in the jury assembly room before you are sent to the courtroom before selection of a jury. Unfortunately, many people ignore the video and do something else while it is playing.

[the-lexicon]

Stories like this one prove to us WONDERFULLY, how smart the framers of the Constitution were, and how much they protected us from ourselves.

Maybe it isn't so much about being smart, rather that they were smack in the middle of a situation as bad as the solutions that many posters here are advocating.

See, folks...Wh­ile the courts certainly ARE a mechanism for maintaining political control with the elite...th­ey are SO MUCH BETTER than you think.

What many of you advocate, is really only a very minor step away from handing a defendant over to a mob, and letting it dispense justice.

That sound like a good idea to you?

Rules of evidence almost ALWAYS protect the defendant. When you allow jurors to do their own discovery, you are tossing the rules of evidence to the winds.

It's simple. DID THE STATE PROVE IT'S CASE? Still unsure? then not guilty.

lexicon

[research]

BS rules of evidence allow the prosecution to withhold evidence that would help the dependent, legally.

You fear the "mob" all conservatives do.

What part of Public don't you understand??????

The founding fathers WERE brilliant, they put "Public" in there very carefully.

OJ got off, because of ignorance.

Ignorance is injustice.

[the-lexicon]

run on sentences.­..malaprop­isms...pun­ctuation..­.bad analysis..­.

Listen, young man...you'­re on the right track...be suspicious and withhold trust in the system. All good things.

When Jurors do their own research, it is NOT PUBLIC. It is secret, unavailable to the defendant or prosecutor. That's the OPPOSITE of public.

and I, a conservative? interestin­g....

....er....­no.

But, do I love my country, and think that some of it (like, the Constitution for one) is pretty darned special? you betcha.

lexicon

[suec03]

Rules of evidence carry out the fourth and fifth amendments to the US Constitution, against illegal searches and seizures and against being forced to testify against yourself, as well as your right not to be deprived of your liberty (imprisoned), life (executed), or property (fine or forfeiture) without due process of law (notice of the charges against you, opportunity to present favorable witness testimony and cross-examine witnesses against you, opportunity to examine physical evidence, right against self-incrimination and right to be tried by a panel of jurors selected in a process to weed out biased jurors).

[joebaggadonuts]

The evidence produced at trial is the province of the Judge. If you have a bad judge or poor representation, the evidence will be bad too. If the jury searches the internet for better evidence, this could lead to a good result, or it could lead to a bad result where slanted evidence which is improper to consider in making the best judgment is considered.

I think that if jurors look to dictionaries to define words or to other similar sources there is little chance of harm from considering inappropriate facts, but understanding the law is not an easy task lightly undertaken on one's own with only an iPhone 3G search capability and tiny screen to use in the space of time a jury has to consider their duty.

If it is fair to exclude jurors through vior dire for apparent prejudice, it is fair to exclude the use of such devices for their potential to create improper prejudice. Jurors should when they have a lack of understanding about how to approach an issue ask the judge for guidance. That is their job. As Research points out, it is then also their job to interpret this guidance howsoever they feel, ignoring it if they think that is correct.

[research]

Juries have much more power than they normally use.

http://www.fija.org/docs/jurors_handbook_a_citizens_guide_to_jury_duty.pdf

How can you possibly believe that ignorance will bring better verdicts?

[the-lexicon]

How can you possibly believe that anything I can look up on FOX or TMZ is anything BUT ignorance?

lexicon

[kid5rivers2]

http://kid5rivers.blogspot.com/2009/03/court-and-microprocess-branch.html

[research]

"Time, then, to invoke the old neighbour's house-on-fire adage -let trial by jury be abolished and replaced by trial by a solitary judge or a panel of judges, as obtains in civil matters and appeals before any foul-smelling thing hits the fan."

NO.

Public Trial is a constitutional right.

[research]

"Public"

What part of the constitution, don't you understand?

Only Liars fear greater access to knowledge and information

[the-lexicon]

"research", my dear friend, you are embarrassing yourself.

[research]

Really? please define "public".

Please figure out a definition that would possibly force Jurist to stay ignorant of the public debate about a case.

[suec03]

Court and sheriff's department websites, as well as lots of other websites, can contain errors and misinformation. It is not truthful info I fear, it is untrained laypersons who both refuse to follow the straightforward rules given by the judge after input from both attorneys, and think they can do better legal research than the attorneys did. Perhaps you watched "Suspect" with Cher and Dennis Quaid too many times. It was only because of the screenwriter that the juror's investigation and working with the defense attorney worked out. It is not due process. The problems with our justice system need serious, systemic change, not amateur private eyes with internet access.

[jukesgrrl]

How about the cost of the retrial being divided among the jurors who disobeyed the judge's instructions?

[MossyOak]

Having served on a few juries, I can understand the temptation to want more information than you are allowed to see in a trial. Juries are often asked to make life and death decisions even though they know they are not privy to all the facts due to the convoluted and intensely debated rules of evidence. I'm not defending a juror's right to break the rules, but they have always been on a honor system to stay away from newspapers and television­... yeah, right. Kind of like asking AIG not to pay those bonuses.

[Geoffreys]

I agree. The temptation is there and I've wanted to break the rules when I've sat on juries. But, I gave my word that I wouldn't.

I know it's an old-fashioned concept, but I hold my personal integrity in high regard and try to do my best to not compromise it.

[Feanor]

If you are on a jury and feel that you are being asked to make a decision without sufficient information, then perhaps a mistrial because you did an internet search is the right outcome.

[Snowspot]

You guys need to deal with it. Rules will have to change, we never had the internet before.

The constitution will have to be changed because of technology­.. and the changes will be unprecende­nted... because we've never been connected 24/7 before.

[research]

Actually, we just need to follow the Constitution:

"Fair and Public Trail" is what is guaranteed.

Public.

[the-lexicon]

Ok, then let jurors do their own research, but every single page they read or access, and every so-called-fact that they discover, has to be admitted and disclosed in court, with both sides having a chance to examine and rebut.

Thus, every time a jurist does it, it really means a whole new trial! But that's ok. Especially if the jurists get their info from tin-foil-hatters and unsubstantiated sources.

lexicon

[1201SLD]

Jurors' cellphones and other electronic tools should be checked with the court's sergeant-at-arms. Jurors who do not observe the court's instructions should be held in contempt and jailed, period.

[MossyOak]

Now there's a terrific idea... let's put juries in jail if they misbehave. Think that one out very long, did you?

[1201SLD]

Yup, and I am unanimous in that, thank you very much.

[jukesgrrl]

Right, why is that so hard? In cases where juries are sequestered, they are often denied the right to watch the news or read a paper. Why is this any different?

[LeftLeftLeft]

Google, and Twitter, and text away my friends . . . just don't complain the day YOUR jury is influenced by information sought outside of the jury room and courthouse! Jury instructions, and the right to exclude information, are essential to securing a fair trial void of technicalities that overturn decisions. I believe we may be seeing the need to make such actions criminal just as is tampering with a jury. Both the parties to a trial and the people paying for it deserve to have a clean and uncompromised pathway to a jury decision.

And just what is wrong with people these days that they feel they have the right to have the entire world connected to their particular electronic device 24/7? The human body is held together with connective tissue . . . but when that tissue grows out of control it becomes a crippling condition known as adhesions. Our society is in danger of becoming so adhered by our connectivity that privacy rights, and the occasional peace of solitude, will become extinct.

[research]

Don't you folks understand the purpose and history of the Jury system?

"The jury is there, by design, "to prevent oppression by
the Government" and to "protect against unfounded
criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and
against judges too responsive to the voice of higher
authority.­"53 The jury's role "as a check on official
power" is in fact "its intended function."­54"

http://www.fija.org/docs/jurors_handbook_a_citizens_guide_to_jury_duty.pdf

This is more Elitism. The American Constitution is about the People, in this case, the jury.

Fair and Public trial.

PUBLIC.

The Jury has every constitutional right to be in complete communication with the outside world, the Public. Mushroom order from the Judge are unconstitutional.

The Jury can ask questions, bring back witnesses for those questions, and a lot more, the judges and the lawyers don't want you to know about.

[suec03]

Please read the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh amendments to the US Constitution and some articles about due process of law. As others have pointed out, if you were wrongfully charged with a crime, and you had some past contact with the law on different matters, would you want the Rush Limbaugh and Hannity fans on the jury to do internet research at their favorite websites and decide in spite of the evidence presented in court that you probably did it, so they vote a guilty verdict even though your guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt as the law requires?

[research]

Yes. You fear knowledge, the truth, will convict you?

Perhaps you are guilty.

So you too, hate the constitution, and don't trust the "mob".

Let the elite handle it, they have done such a great jobs so far, huh?

You think OJ would have escaped if the jury was informed?

[1201SLD]

Your "research" is faulty and incomplete.

[research]

If you hate the constitution.

[tomasedison]

no phones, beepers, pagers, Ipods, cameras, or electronics of any sort
sit and watch the trial

what is so hard to understand ?

[MrFiskar]

I'd bet everyone of those idiots are college educated also.

[Snowspot]

*yawn*

[MossyOak]

Still mad no college would accept you? Can't imagine why...