Internet-Caused Mistrials Are On the Rise 414
The NYTimes is running a tip-of-the-iceberg story about how the age of Google is resulting in more mistrials as the traditional rules of evidence, honed over many centuries, collide with the always-on Internet. Especially when jurors carry the always-on Internet in their pockets. (We discussed one such case recently.) "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. ... Jurors are not supposed to seek information outside of the courtroom. They are required to reach a verdict based on only the facts 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."
Solution (Score:1, Interesting)
allow informational sites and searches to be counted as admissable
Re:Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
allow informational sites and searches to be counted as admissable
That's a great idea! So, the next time I stand accused of murder, I'll simply edit my Wikipedia page to say "Shakrai did not commit this crime" and rest easy in the knowledge that my acquittal will follow soon thereafter. Think of all the money I can save on defense attorneys now ;)
Re:Easy solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Easy solution (Score:4, Interesting)
When I was called up for jury duty last summer, I had to surrender my cell phone before going through the metal detector. I think other electronics were prohibited as well. Seems like this would be pretty simple to stop by a small rules change at the court house. Just ban cell phones and similar devices.
Re:A Jury Of Our Peers (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember John Allan Muhammad [wikipedia.org] and Lee Boyd Malvo? Choice quote from the Wikipedia:
...the primary reason for extraditing the two suspects from Maryland...to Virginia, was the differences in how the two states deal with the death penalty. While the death penalty is allowed in Maryland, it is only applied to persons who were adults at the time of their crimes, whereas Virginia had also allowed the death penalty for offenders who had been juveniles when their crimes were committed.
But yeah, if most of my peers watched American Idol and Rush Limbaugh I'd be shittin' bricks too.
Re:So change the rules (Score:3, Interesting)
Last time I was on a jury, we got a printout of that information. I don't know if that's normal or not, but it was certainly useful.
Re:Easy solution (Score:3, Interesting)
That's all well and good in the courtroom but jurors go home at the end of the day. What are you going to do? Start sequestering every jury for every trial?
Re:Easy solution (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry--I myself have always wanted to do my civil duty and serve on a jury but know that I will never be able to because of some stupid stuff I did when I was young.
Re:Easy solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
While I don't think that the rules of evidence are beyond reproach(in particular, I've always found it weird that jurors can't ask questions)
In some states, jurors can ask questions, in writing, through the judge. Whether the questions are posed to witnesses is at the judge's discretion. (Naturally, in any state jurors may ask the judge questions to clarify their instructions, but that's not what you meant.)
Re:Easy solution (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing is that they're not supposed to read the newspaper. For one thing, it's relatively easy not to read the newspaper. And for another, the newspaper doesn't contain even a minute fraction of the info that can be found on Google and Wikipedia in 10 seconds.
I can get home from that day's proceedings and have Wikipedia summaries of the law, tons of background info on the defendant and plaintiff, and every news article about the case ever printed in about 2.5 minutes using the internet. How are you going to research case law about employment contracts from home without the internet?
Go read the article. It covers all this.
Re:Easy solution (Score:4, Interesting)
That is the problem with the system, which explicitly fills large amounts of time with testimony of little or no real value to the case.
Most trials aren't really about "truth" as much as about being "fair". And what is "fair" is totally stacked against the state, and in favor of the defendant.
And people like OJ are free because Furman said the N word (slight over simplification). That's the system. Everyone knows OJ did it.
Re:The Internet will save our judicial system. (Score:4, Interesting)
"legal system to do things right, a..."
Bull.
outside information can prejudice a juror. The role of juror is to come to a conclusion based on the allowed 'facts' in that court room.
If the internet was an unimpeachable source, then we could have a nice discussion about looking into it and it's impact on the criminal system. Since it is not, then you have jurors as likely as not getting bad information.
If it isn't challenged, then it is true for that court room.
Finality and Morons (Score:3, Interesting)
This is not about "blaming" the technology. It is about adapting to the technology. In the old days, as one poster notes, a fool juror would retire to the bar and blab about the trial. This kind of blabbing would get the juror removed and might get a mistrial--if there was anybody out there who was motivated enough to report it to the court.
Now, fool jurors can blab about a trial indelibly, and to the whole world. It is very easy for such information to get back to the court.
You have no idea how awful it is for a perfectly good trial to get mistrialed because of a misbehaving juror. Think about rape victims having to testify about their ordeal a second time. Think about crucial murder witnesses who die after the mistrial and before the retrial. Think about thousands and thousands of dollars in preparation--wasted. And a civil "bet the company" trial where a juror leaks inside information . . .
The internet is increasing the frequency of mistrials. How will we respond? Ignore it and put up with the extreme waste? Penalize jurors? Sequestrate jurors? There are not a lot of choices.
I say hammer the juror whose misbehavior requires a mistrial--with very steep civil and criminal penalties.
Re:So... (Score:2, Interesting)
The judge answered, "Just like all of you ... I don't know. I prefer to adjudicate without that knowledge, as I believe that makes me more impartial. A defendant's criminal record is a key component of sentencing, so I will have that information when the defendant appears before me for sentencing."
I never did find out what the sentence was.
Re:I've done jury duty. (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, most people are more easily swayed by emotion than you are.
I agree, I followed the instructions given in the trial. When evidence was mentioned, then withdrawn because it wasn't relevant, the jury as a whole ignored it. At least, they appeared to... I know I did what we were told. (In this case, the 'evidence' would have leaned towards a guilty verdict, and we came up with a unanimous not-guilty right off.)
But not everyone is able to use logic rather than emotion. Some people feel a need to convict someone for a crime without ever dealing with the fact that it might not be -that- person who did it... You can't even get it through their skulls that the guilty person would still be out there!
So they try to limit the information and give those people a chance of actually thinking logically, instead of emotionally.
I agree that it would be much better if things could just be done right... But we're dealing with humans here.
No fact checking for you! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Easy solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Good point.
I've heard it put forth...that when you are on a jury, you are one of the most powerful people in the United States. You could potentially even have power greater than, or over that of the President. You *can* vote how you feel....and it carries a great deal of weight!!
Re:So change the rules (Score:4, Interesting)
That jury nullification exists as a de facto power is a very different thing than whether or not it is proper. It certainly is the case that the jury can decide the fact questions presented to it on any basis it chooses, including improper ones. Its a bit more debatable whether jury nullification is proper, but in any case jury nullification is not a finding on what the law is, it is a finding that the law should not be applied at all and that the defendant should be let off notwithstanding the law.
Inasmuch as jury nullification is a desirable power of juries (whether or not technically a proper one), I would say that independent, out-of-court investigation, whose contents are not revealed completely to the parties, by jurors in support of it is equally problematic as such investigation in the jury's role as trier of fact, for the same reason: it brings arguments into the jury deliberations that have not been presented to the parties to the case and which the parties whose interests are harmed have no opportunity to rebut.
Re:Check brain at the door? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Easy solution (Score:3, Interesting)
And people like OJ are free because Furman said the N word (slight over simplification). That's the system. Everyone knows OJ did it.
I'd call that "wrong" rather than a "slight oversimplification". The prosecution ran a poor case throughout. They knew that they were dealing with a top notch defense team yet they were still (as I dimly recall) making bad mistakes throughout the trial.
You also ignore that the key piece of evidence, the glove didn't fit OJ's hands when he tried it on in court. That probably was due to improper care of the glove, but it was enough to secure an acquittal. Remember that the jury didn't spend very long to decide to acquit OJ.
Re:Easy solution (Score:3, Interesting)
I take it you've never been on a jury. Do you have any idea how dull jury duty is? I was on a month long trial last summer and it was tedious and awkward. We all had very little in common and the one thing we did have in common was off limits for conversation.
The one jury I was on had very little in common too... which made things *fascinating*. One guy was the head of new technologies for Citibank, and he and his wife were getting ready to adopt a baby from Korea. Another guy was the president of programming for Showtime. One of the women was a security guard, and had some *awesome* stories. Everyone was very different... and we'd go to lunch together, and talk about our lives and stuff that happened to us that had nothing to do with the case, and it was very cool.
That trial only lasted 9 days, but frankly, we were almost sad to break up the party!
Re:judges oinstructions have always banned this (Score:3, Interesting)
That just embrazens the police to try again and again. Who is going to punish the officers when they don't find anything? The police? I know I don't trust the police that much. They've proven that they stick together, through their actions and through the actions of their unions.
The only people who can punish the police are the judges. Even they seem to have their hands in the cookie jar far too often (as many of the judges come from prosecutorial backgrounds, which means they probably have a too-close relationship with cops to begin with). But, when they do want to punish the cops, they have to have something in front of them. What's the likelihood of the owner of a house "accidentally" mistaken for a drug den or a gang hideout actually going and filing civil charges against the cops? Near zero. So the only time you get the cops in front of the judge for illegal searching is when the DA files charges, i.e., the cops actually found something. If the judge then okays the evidence, you end up with the cops being rewarded for their illegal behaviour, and they'll just do it again and again. Short of losing their badge, there is no punishment severe enough to get cops to only do illegal searches when they're right, and I'm not even sure that that is severe enough: cops often have superiority and god complexes, thinking that because they enforce the law, they're above it.
Of course, if they were heavily punished for not finding anything, I think KopBusters [reason.com] would suddenly get a lot of job offers. Probably mostly from gangs.