Jurors using internet and other communications causing mistrials - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 03-17-2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

View: Mistrial by iPhone: Web Research by Jurors Upends Trials
Source: NYTimes
posted with the TFP thread generator

Mistrial by iPhone: Web Research by Jurors Upends Trials
March 18, 2009
Mistrial by iPhone: Web Research by Jurors Upends Trials
By JOHN SCHWARTZ

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.

“We were stunned,” said the defense lawyer, Peter Raben, who was told by the jury that he was on the verge of winning the case. “It’s the first time modern technology struck us in that fashion, and it hit us right over the head.”

It might be called a Google mistrial. The use of BlackBerrys and iPhones by jurors gathering and sending out information about cases is wreaking havoc on trials around the country, upending deliberations and infuriating judges.

Last week, a building products company asked an Arkansas court to overturn a $12.6 million judgment against it after a juror used Twitter to send updates during the civil trial.

And on Monday, defense lawyers in the federal corruption trial of a former Pennsylvania state senator, Vincent J. Fumo, demanded that the judge declare a mistrial after a juror posted updates on the case on Twitter and Facebook. The juror even told his readers that a “big announcement” was coming Monday. But the judge decided to let the trial continue, and the jury found Mr. Fumo guilty. His lawyers plan to use the Internet postings as grounds for appeal.

Jurors are not supposed to seek information outside of the courtroom. They are required to reach a verdict based only on the facts that the judge has decided are admissible, and they are not supposed to see evidence that has been excluded as prejudicial. But now, using their cellphones, they can look up the name of a defendant on the Web, or examine an intersection using Google Maps, violating the legal system’s complex rules of evidence. They can also tell their friends what is happening in the jury room, though they are supposed to keep their opinions and deliberations secret.

A juror on a lunch or bathroom break can find out many details about a case. Wikipedia can help explain the technology underlying a patent claim or medical condition, Google Maps can show how long it might take to drive from point A to point B, and news sites can write about a criminal defendant, his lawyers or expert witnesses.

“It’s really impossible to control it,” said Douglas L. Keene, president of the American Society of Trial Consultants.

Judges have long amended their habitual warning about seeking outside information during trials to include Internet searches. But with the Internet now as close as the juror’s pocket, the risk has grown more immediate — and instinctual. Attorneys have begun to routinely check the blogs and Web sites of prospective jurors.

Mr. Keene said jurors might think they were helping, not hurting, by digging deeper. “There are people who feel they can’t serve justice if they don’t find the answers to certain questions,” he said.

But the rules of evidence, developed over hundreds of years of jurisprudence, are there to ensure that the facts that go before a jury have been subjected to scrutiny and challenge from both sides, said Olin Guy Wellborn III, a law professor at the University of Texas.

“That’s the beauty of the adversary system,” Professor Wellborn, co-author of a handbook on evidence law, said. “You lose all that when the jurors go out on their own.”

There appears to be no official tally of cases disrupted by Internet research, but with the increasing adoption of Web technology in cellphones, the numbers are sure to grow. Some courts are beginning to restrict the use of cellphones by jurors within the courthouse, even confiscating them during the day, but the majority do not, Mr. Keene said. And computer use at home, of course, is not restricted unless a jury is sequestered.

In the Florida case that resulted in a mistrial, Mr. Raben spent nearly eight weeks fighting charges that his client had illegally sold prescription drugs through Internet pharmacies. The arguments were completed and the jury was deliberating when one of them contacted the judge to say another juror had admitted to her that he had done some outside research on the case over the Internet.

As the judge questioned the juror about his research — which included evidence that the judge had specifically excluded — Mr. Raben said he recalled thinking that if the juror had not broadly communicated his information with the rest of the jury, the trial could continue and the eight weeks would not be wasted. “We can just kick this juror off and go,” he said.

But then the judge found that eight other jurors had done the same thing — Google searches on the lawyers and the defendant, looking up news stories about the case, checking definitions on Wikipedia and searching for evidence that had been specifically excluded by the judge. One juror, asked about the research by the judge, said, “Well, I was curious,” according to Mr. Raben.

“It was a heartbreak,” Mr. Raben added.

Information flowing out of the jury box can be nearly as much trouble as the information flowing in; jurors accustomed to posting regular updates on their day-to-day experiences and thoughts can find themselves on a collision course with the law.

In the Arkansas case, Stoam Holdings, the company trying to overturn the $12.6 million judgment, said a juror, Johnathan Powell, had sent Twitter messages during the trial. Mr. Powell’s messages included, “oh and nobody buy Stoam. Its bad mojo and they’ll probably cease to Exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter,” and “So Johnathan, what did you do today? Oh nothing really, I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else’s money.”

Mr. Powell, 29, the manager of a one-hour photo booth at a Wal-Mart in Fayetteville, Ark., insisted in an interview that he had not sent any substantive messages about the case until the verdict had been delivered and he was released from his obligation not to discuss the case. “I was done when I mentioned the trial at all,” he said. “They’re welcome to pull my phone records.”

But juror research is a more troublesome issue than sending Twitter messages or blogging, Mr. Keene said, and raises new issues for judges in giving instructions.

“It’s important that they don’t know what’s excluded, and it’s important that they don’t know why it’s excluded,” Mr. Keene said. The court cannot even give a full explanation to jurors about research — say, to tell them what not to look for — and so instructions are usually delivered as blanket admonitions, he said.

The technological landscape has changed so much that today’s judge, Mr. Keene said, “has to explain why this is crucial, and not just go through boilerplate instructions.” And, he said, enforcement goes beyond what the judge can do, noting that “it’s up to juror 11 to make sure juror 12 stays in line.”

It does not always work out that way. Seth A. McDowell, a data support specialist who lives in Albuquerque and works for a financial advising firm, said he was serving on a jury last year when another juror admitted doing a Google search on the defendant, even though she acknowledged that she was not supposed to do so. She said she did not find anything, Mr. McDowell said.

Mr. McDowell, 35, said he thought about telling the judge, but decided against it. None of the other jurors did, either. Now, he said, after a bit of soul searching, he feels he might have made the wrong choice. But he remains somewhat torn.

“I don’t know,” he said. “If everybody did the right thing, the trial, which took two days, would have gone on for another bazillion years.”

Mr. McDowell said he planned to attend law school in the fall.

I've not heard of this, but it makes total sense. I believe that no one believes that anyone's right is more important than their own. When you are a juror your rights are restricted because of the importance of the task that is being undertaken. But people don't see that, I see this as another case of,"It's my right!" to talk to their friends about a case or trial.

The costs of this kind of behavior is unacceptable. I am at a loss of what to do except sequester everyone for every trial. I don't see how to do it otherwise. And even then, afterward, you're still trying to tell people what went on via some expose book? Seriously people have some self respect and some integrity of being.

I take things very seriously. When I'm tasked with the burden of keeping something secret. I'm keeping that secret, even from my wife. It's a simple thing called integrity.

Here's the thing that I believe that people aren't understanding when they go against the rules, they don't realize that the company may win a case they should out right lose, or a killer may go free all because someone else said, "It's my right to do this..."

cdwonderful · 03-17-2009, 02:05 PM

shouldnt they just take their phones away?

Cynthetiq · 03-17-2009, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdwonderful

shouldnt they just take their phones away?

they said some do...

Quote:

There appears to be no official tally of cases disrupted by Internet research, but with the increasing adoption of Web technology in cellphones, the numbers are sure to grow. Some courts are beginning to restrict the use of cellphones by jurors within the courthouse, even confiscating them during the day, but the majority do not, Mr. Keene said. And computer use at home, of course, is not restricted unless a jury is sequestered.

but what happens when you go home?

cdwonderful · 03-17-2009, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

but what happens when you go home?

doenst that fall within the dont talk about the case admonition ?

Cynthetiq · 03-17-2009, 02:17 PM

of course, but the problem is that people don't listen to or won't follow directions/instructions. If they followed/listened to instructions they'd not get their phones taken away from them.

cdwonderful · 03-17-2009, 02:22 PM

some people are just no damn good!

Xerxys · 03-17-2009, 03:25 PM

Cynth, you nailed it.

Just how preposterous it is for you to opress other and not let them exercise their rights!!! I really wonder why everyone believes they can do some things simply because they can. Don't they uderstand that once you do a google search you fail to become jury and automatically become judge??

I wonder though. If you're hearing a case and fail to understand something, can't you just pipe up and say, "what did you mean by ...."? Aren't they given ample time and further information and all they have to do is ask for it?

SecretMethod70 · 03-17-2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xerxys

Cynth, you nailed it.

Just how preposterous it is for you to opress other and not let them exercise their rights!!! I really wonder why everyone believes they can do some things simply because they can. Don't they uderstand that once you do a google search you fail to become jury and automatically become judge??

I wonder though. If you're hearing a case and fail to understand something, can't you just pipe up and say, "what did you mean by ...."? Aren't they given ample time and further information and all they have to do is ask for it?

I believe they have to wait until deliberation, but I'm pretty sure they can request clarification during deliberation.

It's pathetic that so many people have so little respect for their role in the process.

genuinegirly · 03-17-2009, 04:12 PM

It shows a lack of education about the jury system or an incredible narcissism to believe you are above the system. I certainly hope that those who leak information about a trial are held accountable for their actions. What a nightmare.

Destrox · 03-17-2009, 08:40 PM

Start making examples of those who are foolish enough to openly to the public break orders by a judge.

You're a Juror, you either do as they say or stop wasting tax payers money.

SecretMethod70 · 03-17-2009, 09:06 PM

You know, you're right. You'd think that such jurors could (and should) at least be held in contempt of court.

dksuddeth · 03-18-2009, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

of course, but the problem is that people don't listen to or won't follow directions/instructions. If they followed/listened to instructions they'd not get their phones taken away from them.

or, it could be that some people are starting to wake up and realize that the government and judicial system put blinders over their eyes. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that judge, prosecutor, or defense attorney has misrepresented or omitted facts from trial to get the desired plea from a jury.

BentNotTwisted · 03-18-2009, 10:21 AM

It seems to me the jurors want more information. Has anyone heard of trials where the jurors can ask questions? It seems reasonable that jurors should be able to submit a list of questions and that the defense/prosecution lawyers and the judge could decide which ones would or would not be answered.

Manic_Skafe · 03-18-2009, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

or, it could be that some people are starting to wake up and realize that the government and judicial system put blinders over their eyes. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that judge, prosecutor, or defense attorney has misrepresented or omitted facts from trial to get the desired plea from a jury.

Bullshit. Wikipedia And Google aren't even credible enough sources for a college research paper. Let alone a court case.

"The System" may not be perfect but I'd happily put more faith into it than some random nitwit turned gumshoe who'd think it sensible to snoop through my myspace page in order to determine my fate in a trial.

cdwonderful · 03-18-2009, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic_Skafe

Bullshit. Wikipedia And Google aren't even credible enough sources for a college research paper. Let alone a court case.

"The System" may not be perfect but I'd happily put more faith into it than some random nitwit turned gumshoe who'd think it sensible to snoop through my myspace page in order to determine my fate in a trial.

it is well to remember that the jury is only supposed to know what is presented to them, not do credible research on their own. So "the system " is not always the best way to actually find out the truth..... not to bash anyone's clay idols or nothing..

Tully Mars · 03-18-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic_Skafe

Bullshit. Wikipedia And Google aren't even credible enough sources for a college research paper. Let alone a court case.

"The System" may not be perfect but I'd happily put more faith into it than some random nitwit turned gumshoe who'd think it sensible to snoop through my myspace page in order to determine my fate in a trial.

Ditto.

Xerxys · 03-18-2009, 12:07 PM

I agree with Manic, regardless of who's playing foul, the jury looking into things completely negates the object of being "impartial".

Fotzlid · 03-18-2009, 12:31 PM

This is something that will probably only get worse. An antiquated system dealing with modern technologies and a generation of people so self absorbed that they can't even drive to the corner store without yakking on the phone or sending Facebook updates via their blackberries.
Its a new mindset.

dksuddeth · 03-18-2009, 01:05 PM

I guess it's true that people have lost the idea of what the jurys responsibility used to be.

as to wiki being a good research tool, I'd agree it's not the most reliable. Google, on the other hand, is just a search engine and can provide both good and bad results.

Manic, can I surmise then that if you were ever to be charged with a crime, you'd be asking for a bench trial instead of a jury trial?

Xerxys · 03-18-2009, 01:52 PM

Bench and Jury ... What's the difference between the two?

cdwonderful · 03-18-2009, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xerxys

Bench and Jury ... What's the difference between the two?

one is heard just by the judge, the other is heard by a jury of your peers...

Xerxys · 03-18-2009, 02:19 PM

Hmmm, I'll go with the Jury, one person can't decide my fate. 12 people is more work to corrupt than one. Not that it can't be done though ...

SecretMethod70 · 03-18-2009, 03:49 PM

Actually, I'd probably go for a bench trial, especially if I were innocent. Some evidence shows judges are more likely to acquit (The Volokh Conspiracy - Judge vs. Jury Acquittals, More Results), and I do think Fotzlid has it right when he calls us "a generation of people so self absorbed that they can't even drive to the corner store without yakking on the phone or sending Facebook updates via their blackberries."

---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 PM ----------

dksuddeth: It's true that Google is what you make of it, but judges are the law experts that are there to make sure the process is fair, while juries are the 12 independent voices that the prosecution needs to convince within the rules of law. If jurors are able to take matters into their own hands, why bother having judges in the first place? Let's just make the jury foreman the acting judge. (/sarcasm)

The_Jazz · 03-18-2009, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I guess it's true that people have lost the idea of what the jurys responsibility used to be.

as to wiki being a good research tool, I'd agree it's not the most reliable. Google, on the other hand, is just a search engine and can provide both good and bad results.

Manic, can I surmise then that if you were ever to be charged with a crime, you'd be asking for a bench trial instead of a jury trial?

When, back in ancient Greece?

A jury in the United States has NEVER been allowed to consult outside sources (beyond the details of the code) or discuss things outside the jury room, ESPECIALLY with those not on the jury. That's the entire reason some juries get sequestered.

dksuddeth · 03-18-2009, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

It's true that Google is what you make of it, but judges are the law experts that are there to make sure the process is fair, while juries are the 12 independent voices that the prosecution needs to convince within the rules of law. If jurors are able to take matters into their own hands, why bother having judges in the first place? Let's just make the jury foreman the acting judge. (/sarcasm)

It's no secret on this board that I hold very little faith in the judicial decisions handed down by the judges on the bench over the last 30 years, but if one does a comprehensive study on major judicial decisions based on cases over the constitution, one would most likely agree that judges are about as reliable as a jury of peers.....and that's not a good thing.

JumpinJesus · 03-18-2009, 07:03 PM

Wouldn't a more modern and quicker solution to be just to eliminate courts altogether and just issue everyone a firearm? All legal disputes are settled thusly:

"You done stole my grits!"

"No'uns I didn't!"

"Yes'uns you did!"

BANG

Quickest draw determines law.

gardens · 03-19-2009, 03:03 PM

everyone knows our judicial system needs a major overhaul, that is certainly something not in doubt
I'm not to terribly surprised that this happened
It'd be nice if juries got sequestered with decent pay and were there for a set time limit
hopefully someday it won't just be random schmucks on either bench or 12 chairs

the previous post makes me wonder what happened to my omelet

Cynthetiq · 03-19-2009, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

or, it could be that some people are starting to wake up and realize that the government and judicial system put blinders over their eyes. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that judge, prosecutor, or defense attorney has misrepresented or omitted facts from trial to get the desired plea from a jury.

so if the officer gets "evidence" illegally not following the constitutional process and it is suppressed from the trial, it would be okay for the juror to find out about that information? would it still give them the ability to make a fain and unbiased judgement?

dksuddeth · 03-20-2009, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

so if the officer gets "evidence" illegally not following the constitutional process and it is suppressed from the trial, it would be okay for the juror to find out about that information? would it still give them the ability to make a fain and unbiased judgement?

good question and honestly, I dont' really know the answer to that question. I know how I'd answer for myself, but I gave up trying to guesstimate the actions or thinkings of others.

Cynthetiq · 03-23-2009, 07:50 AM

dk some of your position is supported by some of the OPED letters. I find it interesting that it comes from a law student and lawyer. Maybe I need to rethink it but I'd like to understand how someone is supposed to suppress the inadmissible evidence which isn't verbally suppressed in the courtroom. I've not ever had the chance to see just how the suppression of evidence is presented to the jurors. Is it a list that says, you must discount this, this and that?

Quote:

View: When Jurors Seek Evidence Online
Source: Nytimes
posted with the TFP thread generator

When Jurors Seek Evidence Online
March 23, 2009
Letters
When Jurors Seek Evidence Online

To the Editor:

Re “As Jurors Turn to Google and Twitter, Mistrials Are Popping Up” (front page, March 18):

Jurors’ use of online resources is inevitable and, as the article shows, already widespread. One law professor says that this subverts “hundreds of years of jurisprudence,” developed to ensure that “the facts that go before a jury have been subjected to scrutiny and challenge from both sides.”

But our jurisprudence has also always recognized that lay jurors bring their common knowledge and experience to the deliberation room. The meanings of these terms are shifting, however, in the digital age. Even as courtrooms themselves become paperless, the legal system may seem increasingly archaic if it denies jurors their usual share of the knowledge and experience that are a click away.

This will all pose a big challenge for the legal community, and specifically for our ways of thinking about how to arrive at acceptable legal outcomes.

If the litigation ritual continues to be seen as a search for truth, and as a way to peacefully settle social conflicts and promote fairness, then society, and jurists, will be able to adjust.

Alani Golanski
New York, March 18, 2009

The writer is a lawyer.

•

To the Editor:

Let’s face it, jurors may tweet, Facebook, Google, FriendFeed, Digg and search while on jury duty. Even when instructed not to. Yesterday, there were more than 60 tweets on Twitter that mentioned jury duty in a 24-hour period. Fortunately, none of these messages were of a substantive nature about a case or a trial and were mostly just personal announcements about being called for jury duty.

The legal industry can be slow to adapt to new technology, but trial lawyers must get used to the realities of Web 2.0 and the social media coverage of their case and case issues. There is no more excuse for trial lawyers not to be prepared for this possibility.

As a lawyer and a professional trial consultant providing social media awareness training and social media analysis for trial lawyers, I make sure that my clients know that if their case is in the news media, it is also in the social media. Knowing what is being said online about their clients and their case issues is essential.

Trial lawyers need to know what jurors are reading online and what they are potentially exposed to. Trial teams can track search terms that could be commonly used if a juror resorts to “independent research.” They need to find out what key definitions are provided on Wikipedia that could be searched if your case goes to trial.

This information is not only critical in the case of a potential mistrial, appeal or dismissal of an individual juror, but may also go a long way to inform jury research and trial strategy.

This is really not new. But the question today is, Are trial lawyers savvy enough to track and monitor everything that the jury can? If not, isn’t it time that they learned how to tweet?

Christine Martin
New York, March 18, 2009

•

To the Editor:

I can’t say I am really surprised to see that jurors are doing research on the Internet. It seems to me that more and more people thumb their nose at respect or responsibility for the law or “doing the right thing.”

Every day, we all witness people driving and holding their cellphones in their hands — a direct violation of the law, but not for them: it was an important call.

How many times have you been to a movie or a Broadway play where people continue to talk freely among themselves (or on a cellphone) with a complete lack of respect for those around them? This is a “me first” society, and people do what they want to.

What does surprise me a little is that people are freely admitting that they are searching for this information on the Net. People who perform these explorations while performing their duties as jurors and get caught should be subject to a heavy fine and/or jail time.

Errol Arne
New Fairfield, Conn., March 18, 2009

•

To the Editor:

Our system of justice claims to seek the whole truth, and that needs the whole facts, not a censored set of information controlled by a judge and lawyers.

Jurors should be encouraged to participate in a trial and discover information for themselves by any means possible — Internet, books and so on. They should also be encouraged to question prosecutors, defendants and witnesses, with the judge and lawyers assisting (not controlling) the process.

We need to adjust our justice system to modern times and make it a more participatory, democratic process and discard the closely controlled, adversarial game favored by judges and lawyers. Open up the system and let the facts fall where they may.

Barrie F. Taylor
Miami, March 18, 2009

•

To the Editor:

Jurors are asked to decide cases in a thoughtful and yet naïve way, reflecting a dichotomy improperly created by the current evidentiary rules. While jurors are considered competent to award millions of dollars and to properly weigh the evidence in the process, they are considered incompetent to decide what evidence should be admissible.

Instead, judges serve as the gatekeepers of information, protecting jurors from information that might corrupt their ability to decide the case. But with the advent of the Internet, jurors are given broader access to information denied to them based on arcane legal rules.

Jurors’ use of the Internet reflects both the day-to-day importance of the Internet as well as a revolt against a system that insists on keeping intelligent and discerning jurors from being given the whole truth before they render a verdict. We should have greater faith in jurors’ abilities to separate and weigh evidence properly.

Luke Wilson
Washington, March 18, 2009

The writer is a law student.

•

To the Editor:

Allowing jurors to submit questions that are screened by the judge for witnesses is one way to overcome the limitations of the purely adversarial trial system.

As full an account of the truth as possible is the goal of a trial, and answering admissible juror questions can mitigate the problem of jurors seeking better understanding of the facts of a case outside the courtroom.

Bruce Kerievsky
Great Neck, N.Y., March 18, 2009

03-17-2009, 02:05 PM	#2 (permalink)
cdwonderful another passenger Location: Youngstown, Ohio	shouldnt they just take their phones away? __________________ Never try to teach a pig to whistle it wastes your time, and annoys the pig.....

03-17-2009, 02:17 PM	#5 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	of course, but the problem is that people don't listen to or won't follow directions/instructions. If they followed/listened to instructions they'd not get their phones taken away from them. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

03-17-2009, 02:22 PM	#6 (permalink)
cdwonderful another passenger Location: Youngstown, Ohio	some people are just no damn good! __________________ Never try to teach a pig to whistle it wastes your time, and annoys the pig.....

03-17-2009, 04:12 PM	#9 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	It shows a lack of education about the jury system or an incredible narcissism to believe you are above the system. I certainly hope that those who leak information about a trial are held accountable for their actions. What a nightmare. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

03-17-2009, 08:40 PM	#10 (permalink)
Destrox Metal and Rock 4 Life Location: Phoenix	Start making examples of those who are foolish enough to openly to the public break orders by a judge. You're a Juror, you either do as they say or stop wasting tax payers money. __________________ You bore me.... next.

03-17-2009, 03:25 PM	#7 (permalink)
Xerxys Junkie Location: My head.	Cynth, you nailed it. Just how preposterous it is for you to opress other and not let them exercise their rights!!! I really wonder why everyone believes they can do some things simply because they can. Don't they uderstand that once you do a google search you fail to become jury and automatically become judge?? I wonder though. If you're hearing a case and fail to understand something, can't you just pipe up and say, "what did you mean by ...."? Aren't they given ample time and further information and all they have to do is ask for it?

03-17-2009, 09:06 PM	#11 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	You know, you're right. You'd think that such jurors could (and should) at least be held in contempt of court. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

03-18-2009, 10:21 AM	#13 (permalink)
BentNotTwisted Optimistic Skeptic Location: Midway between a Beehive and Centennial	It seems to me the jurors want more information. Has anyone heard of trials where the jurors can ask questions? It seems reasonable that jurors should be able to submit a list of questions and that the defense/prosecution lawyers and the judge could decide which ones would or would not be answered. __________________ IS THAT IT ???!!! Do you even know what 'it' is? When the last man dies for just words that he said... We Shall Be Free

03-18-2009, 12:07 PM	#17 (permalink)
Xerxys Junkie Location: My head.	I agree with Manic, regardless of who's playing foul, the jury looking into things completely negates the object of being "impartial".

03-18-2009, 12:31 PM	#18 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Location: Greater Boston area	This is something that will probably only get worse. An antiquated system dealing with modern technologies and a generation of people so self absorbed that they can't even drive to the corner store without yakking on the phone or sending Facebook updates via their blackberries. Its a new mindset.

03-18-2009, 01:05 PM	#19 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	I guess it's true that people have lost the idea of what the jurys responsibility used to be. as to wiki being a good research tool, I'd agree it's not the most reliable. Google, on the other hand, is just a search engine and can provide both good and bad results. Manic, can I surmise then that if you were ever to be charged with a crime, you'd be asking for a bench trial instead of a jury trial? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

03-18-2009, 01:52 PM	#20 (permalink)
Xerxys Junkie Location: My head.	Bench and Jury ... What's the difference between the two?

03-18-2009, 02:19 PM	#22 (permalink)
Xerxys Junkie Location: My head.	Hmmm, I'll go with the Jury, one person can't decide my fate. 12 people is more work to corrupt than one. Not that it can't be done though ...

03-18-2009, 03:49 PM	#23 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Actually, I'd probably go for a bench trial, especially if I were innocent. Some evidence shows judges are more likely to acquit (The Volokh Conspiracy - Judge vs. Jury Acquittals, More Results), and I do think Fotzlid has it right when he calls us "a generation of people so self absorbed that they can't even drive to the corner store without yakking on the phone or sending Facebook updates via their blackberries." ---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 PM ---------- dksuddeth: It's true that Google is what you make of it, but judges are the law experts that are there to make sure the process is fair, while juries are the 12 independent voices that the prosecution needs to convince within the rules of law. If jurors are able to take matters into their own hands, why bother having judges in the first place? Let's just make the jury foreman the acting judge. (/sarcasm) __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

03-18-2009, 07:03 PM	#26 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	Wouldn't a more modern and quicker solution to be just to eliminate courts altogether and just issue everyone a firearm? All legal disputes are settled thusly: "You done stole my grits!" "No'uns I didn't!" "Yes'uns you did!" BANG Quickest draw determines law. __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

03-19-2009, 03:03 PM	#27 (permalink)
gardens Tilted Location: Kolob	everyone knows our judicial system needs a major overhaul, that is certainly something not in doubt I'm not to terribly surprised that this happened It'd be nice if juries got sequestered with decent pay and were there for a set time limit hopefully someday it won't just be random schmucks on either bench or 12 chairs the previous post makes me wonder what happened to my omelet __________________ "Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot. By Order of the Author." --- Samuel Clemens I'm not a Poser, I'm just softcore.