Courts Move To Ban Juror Use of Net, Social Sites 288
coondoggie passes along a NetworkWorld report on the pronouncement of a judicial conference committee recommending that trial judges specifically instruct jurors not to use any electronic communications devices or sites during trial and deliberations. Here's the committee report (PDF). "If you think you're going to use your spanking new iPhone to entertain yourself next time you're on jury duty, think again. Judges are going to take an even dimmer view of jury member use of Blackberry, iPhone, or other electronic devices as a judicial policy-setting group has told district judges they should restrict jurors from using electronic technologies to research or communicate. ... The instructions state jurors must not use cell phones, e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone, text messaging, or on Twitter, or communicate through any blog or website, through any internet chat room, or by way of any other social networking websites, including Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and YouTube."
No different than any other sequestering (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this different than any other method of sequestering a jury? It makes perfect sense to me, human nature being what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Dykes are pretty common round here (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No different than any other sequestering (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't imagine call phones or networked computers are allowed for a sequestered jury anyway - but I think "sequestering" a jury is pretty rare - the state has to provide hotel accommodations and food to everyone in the jury, which is really expensive!
This seems to be about recommending that ALL jurors refrain from accessing these social networks, etc. But I can't see how it's practical outside of the courtroom or deliberation. They can "instruct" the jurors all they want not to go online for the length of the trial, but that's not going to stop too many people...
Re:No different than any other sequestering (Score:4, Informative)
Here in Western Australia, the courts "ask" you to surrender your phone. Doesn't even matter if it doesn't have a camera.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This seems to be about recommending that ALL jurors refrain from accessing these social networks, etc. But I can't see how it's practical outside of the courtroom or deliberation. They can "instruct" the jurors all they want not to go online for the length of the trial, but that's not going to stop too many people...
The rules aren't any different than the current rules for jurors. You're not allowed to discuss the case, and refrain from news about it. This is just updating the rules for the 21st century.
Re:No different than any other sequestering (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly, unfortunately most people here need to RTFA.
The suggested instructions specifically inform jurors that they are prohibited from using these technologies in the courtroom, in deliberations, or outside the courthouse to communicate about or research cases on which they currently serve, the group stated.
There are a lot of comments below that are obviously by people who did not read that.
Re:No different than any other sequestering (Score:5, Informative)
But, as with so many other new laws, why is it even necessary when there are already laws in place?
So that would be "You're not allowed to discuss the case, and refrain from news about it" with the extra clarification of "using any technology available, whether it existed at the time the law was drafted or not". That's still "You're not allowed to discuss the case, and refrain from news about it", whichever way you look at it. Unless someone was completely short-sighted in drafting the original law then these rewrites seem pointless and overly verbose purely for the sake of having another law.
Re: (Score:2)
<tin_foil_hat>Maybe the real purpose of this law is to give the courts something to point to to say that such places aren't actually "news" (aka, the press), and thus they do not qualify for 1st amendment protections.</tin_foil_hat>
Re: (Score:2)
This is akin to saying "Juries shouldn't use the telephone or read a newspaper." In fact some of the restrictions are just that (the iPhone is a telephone).
Are these restrictions arbitrarily selecting modern communication methods? Or are these in addition to banning the use of landline telephones and newspapers?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They can "instruct" the jurors all they want not to go online for the length of the trial, but that's not going to stop too many people...
I don't see how they can reasonably expect people to cease existing. Without the internet there's nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This seems to be about recommending that ALL jurors refrain from accessing these social networks, etc. But I can't see how it's practical outside of the courtroom or deliberation. They can "instruct" the jurors all they want not to go online for the length of the trial, but that's not going to stop too many people...
All that the committee is saying is that jurors can't use electronic media in the court house and can not use electronic media to research or discuss the case outside the courtroom.
Re:No different than any other sequestering (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess courts treat jurors like children.
Only if as a juror you behave as a child, and can't respect the rules of evidence.
These rules have been around for centuries. As a juror, your information about the case you're hearing is to come through testimony given in court. This allows for a fair trail, since both sides can attempt to refute the evidence and testimony. If you go around playing amateur Columbo and CSI, you're going screw up someone's life. You are not an expert. You don't know what you're doing. You're engaging in the CSI effect [wikipedia.org].
Don't. Just don't. If you do, I'd want you thrown off my jury.
And forget bringing your laptop or iPad into the court room to take notes about what's going on in court, so you can make an accurate decision when it comes time for deliberation.
Exactly. That's why they give you *gasp* a pen and paper!
Re:No different than any other sequestering (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly. That's why they give you *gasp* a pen and paper!
and how the hell am I supposed to type with a pen and paper?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That was funny in a sense, but also very very sad. There is a growing population that would have a very hard time using a pen and paper. I know you were joking, but I see this as a problem. The more one grows to rely (as opposed to just using) technology the more one is incapable of taking care of oneself when deprived of said technology.
I'm all for tech obviously or I wouldn't be in IT and wouldn't post here, but your 'joke' just underlines how weak and soft people are growing as they increasingly rely
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is worrying some people is that they're so used to using things like iphone or blackberry for every single thing in their lives. They don't phone their spouse, they text them. They need a beep to remind them to get to court on time. They need a gps to tell them which way to turn on the road to get to court.
There have always been rule
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. That's why they give you *gasp* a pen and paper!
Actually, they don't allow that here unless there are special requirements for the trial. No recording or communications devices and no notes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No different than any other sequestering (Score:4, Interesting)
That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that, along with voir dire, it allows the judges and lawyers to control the process and the verdict while providing the veneer of a trial by jury.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Juries do not need to research their "rights" while a trial is on, they should be concentrating on the evidence in court, and if there is a point of law or something, they should ask the judge.
Also, there is no "right" to be fully informed (i.e. have 24 hour a day access to the internet or whatever) in any case.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Juries do not need to research their "rights" while a trial is on, they should be concentrating on the evidence in court, and if there is a point of law or something, they should ask the judge.
One of the "rights" of a juror is that of jury nullification. Though it is quite controversial, the history of common law and most of US legal precedent suggests it exists. However, if you ask a judge about this they will explicitly tell you that it doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Good point. I was thinking that a jury ban on intartube-connected devices was solely to prevent access to this site:
http://fija.org/ [fija.org] [Fully Informed Jury Association.org]
Merely reciting the quote on the home page beginning with "The primary function of the independent juror..." will be enough to get you thrown off of most jury panels.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're not there for the money. You're there because it's part of your civic duty, much like voting. It irritates me how many people duck jury duty over the pay issue. For some people, I can understand it -- if you're working two jobs and still barely making your bills (or not even that much), even a couple of days off can be ruinous. But I know of people who live quite comfortably well into the low six digits who complain about not getting paid for the time.
I've been called for jury duty about six or s
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From TFA, I believe it's only talking about using these things to discuss or research the case ("The suggested instructions specifically inform jurors that they are prohibited from using these technologies in the courtroom, in deliberations, or outside the courthouse to communicate about or research cases on which they currently serve, the group stated."), and not a blanket ban (which would be absurd and draconian).
Although the article is rather badly worded - the paragraph "The instructions state jurors mu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And the summary cuts out that very important, relevant bit. Was that an attempt to sensationalize the story?
Re: (Score:2)
sure makes it easier for the smart folks to avoid a jury trial if they wish to do so.
end result: annoying to do on small cases.
Re: (Score:2)
last case I was in someone tried the overt ethnic slur...
Judge excused them and found them in contempt.
I don't think that turned out the way they had planned.
As for me, it's easy. I *want* to serve, for some reason that seems to get me 'preemptively excused' every time, usually be the defense.
-nB
And? (Score:4, Funny)
This is surprising how?
Such use has resulted in mistrials, exclusion of jurors, and imposition of fines. ... The instructions state jurors must not [...] communicate through any blog or website, through any internet chat room, or by way of any other social networking websites, including Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and YouTube.
Because we all know Facebook and YouTube are full of impartial people who know anything about case law.
Re:And? (Score:4, Interesting)
The issue is people using the internet to look up information that they have been told they can't use when deliberating.
Things like the defendants personal wealth, criminal record, information on "evidence" that has been ruled inadmissible or just plain trying to stir up public opinion in an effort to sway the court.
On the flip side some defendants have tried harassing jurors via their personal electronics or having some one physically show up at a jurors residence or place of work.
However, given that most juries are not sequestered, this like all the other instructions depend on honesty of the juror and the people they associate with.
Having been on a non-sequestered jury for a murder trail, it is a pain in the butt to go home after a day in the jury box and not be able to watch the evening news, read the days newspaper,just surf the internet or discuss with your significant other (all things banned by the judge in his instructions).
How was your day?
Jury duty all day.
What type of case?
Can't tell you.
How long will it last?
Can't tell you?
I'm going to bed, will you watch the news and tell me what the weather will be like tomorrow?
Sorry, I can't watch the news.
Well, then look it up on the internet.
Sorry, I'm not allowed to use the internet.
Then how are you going to stay caught up at work?
I won't I'm on jury duty and can't use the internet.
and on and on and on
Re: (Score:2)
Because we all know Facebook and YouTube are full of impartial people who know anything about case law.
Yeah, how could you compare them to the legal skills of Ask Slashdot!
WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
Specifically, those instruction spell out that jurors should not you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials, search the internet, websites, blogs, or use any other electronic tools to obtain information either before the trial, during deliberations or after until the judge instructs otherwise.
Okay, maybe if jurors were required to pass some type of basic test that indicates they have a reasonable understanding of basic terms this would make sense, but denying the use of dictionaries makes no sense at all. How in the world is a "normal" person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one when they aren't even allowed to research what is being said?
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
>but denying the use of dictionaries makes no sense at all.
It does make sense. That's because most dictionaries do not give the legal definition for a term, and the legal definition can vary from state to state. If you are unsure, and you are on a jury, you have the foreman ask the judge the meaning of a word.
For instance, there is the colloquial definition of the word "insanity" yet in the United States there are 51 legal definitions (50 states plus federal) of that term.
I am sure NYCL and other actual lawyers here that can chime in on this topic.
Looking shit up in a dictionary can be a very bad thing.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So provide the jury with a copy of Blacks Legal Dictionary. Or start operating the courts in English so that normal dictionaries are as right as any others.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, a jury being uninformed in the sense of the person on trial - that's fine. But what good reason is there for there not to be a relevant law library in every deliberation room? How is a juror understanding the law itself in any way unfair to either side (except for those who are counting on an ignorant interpretation of the law to get their client off the hook)?
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like you didn't even read what I wrote, skipped right to the last line, and didn't think for one second that wrong information can be worse than no information.
Let me repeat it again, slower this time, and louder: TYPICAL DICTIONARIES DO NOT HAVE THE CORRECT LEGAL DEFINITIONS IN THEM THAT YOU CAN USE IN A JURY ROOM, WHICH IS WHY YOU SHOULD ASK THE JUDGE FOR THE DEFINITION OF A TERM THROUGH THE JURY FOREMAN.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
The legal meaning of a word is whatever the electorate and the jury decide. No amount of idiocy by lawyers can change this unless our government is no longer of, by, and for the people.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, the AC did read what you said. That's why he suggested to "start operating the courts in English" as opposed to legalese that only superficially looks like English but has completely different non-obvious meanings for words that ordinary people use all the time.
Typical juries don't even know that they don't know the meaning of the words. The words are ones they use all the time, so they think they know the meaning and see no need to ask for an official definition. It is the legal system that perverts those meanings.
If you want the jury to get it right, come up with a list of commonly misunderstood (for the courtroom meaning) words and make sure to spend some time educating the jurors. Don't wait for them to ask the meaning of words, because they already think they know the meanings. Sometimes, they will start to realize things aren't making sense and will try to figure out what's wrong.
I would be much more likely to try to look it up myself instead of asking the judge to explain it. For one thing, even the friendliest of judges is very intimidating, just because he is a judge and you are in his courtroom, whether you're the one on trial or not.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Alternatively, we can do away with the jury system altogether and just have bench trials, but there are probably a good portion of judges who
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're not. You're expected to do as you're told, and think what they tell you to think. It's common for some sort of deal to have taken place, or for some sort of circumstance affecting another case to have occurred, but the jury is usually kept in the dark about it, even if they do catch a strong whiff of rodent.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Specifically, those instruction spell out that jurors should not you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials, search the internet, websites, blogs, or use any other electronic tools to obtain information either before the trial, during deliberations or after until the judge instructs otherwise.
Okay, maybe if jurors were required to pass some type of basic test that indicates they have a reasonable understanding of basic terms this would make sense, but denying the use of dictionaries makes no sense at all. How in the world is a "normal" person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one when they aren't even allowed to research what is being said?
If the definition of a word is of critical importance in a case, that is all the more reason for jurors NOT to consult a dictionary. Dictionary authors are not the final arbiters of legal disputes, and their opinion on what words mean carries no weight in court. Besides, which dictionary rules? No, it is the jurors' understanding of the relevant terms that governs. The parties will surely spare no efforts in explaining their preferred interpretations, if it's important to the case. If it's not a matter that's open to interpretation by the jurors, then the judge will provide the definition to be used. These same rules apply to all information in the trial, not just definitions of words. Any information the jury needs to know to resolve the case must be provided by the parties, or by the judge. If the parties fail to provide enough information, they suffer the consequences in the form of a poorly informed verdict. Because outside information cannot be vetted for accuracy or legal relevance, and cannot be rebutted by the parties, it is ENTIRELY IMPROPER for jurors to consider it, and DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF THE TRIAL PROCESS! Before you argue otherwise, put yourself in the position of either party to the case and consider how you would want this to be handled. You will inevitably reach the same conclusion - complete control of the jury's information feed will give the best and most consistent results for any party to the dispute. Jurors find this frustrating, but trials do not exist for their entertainment.
How can jurors tell if a lawyer (or more importantly, a witness) is pulling a fast one? Two ways: first, the other attorney damn well ought to be calling him out. That's his job. Second, jurors apply the same common sense factors that let them determine trustworthiness every day outside the courtroom. What if the judge is pulling a fast one? That's not for the jury to identify or correct - that's what appellate courts are for. Appellate judges earn their salaries by determining when trial judges got things wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Jurors find this frustrating, but trials do not exist for their entertainment.
If I had mod points currently you would see a '+* insightful' just for that. Sorry you have to see this comment instead. :-)
The key word that applies to this is jury duty . Duty...it implies a lot of things, very often not pleasant.
The present day attitude of lack of personal responsibility and self entitlement is despicable, IMO.
Except for the fact that this affects everyone, and not just the self-entitled 'not my fault because *insert 'reason' here*' asshats...well I could not care less for their perceive
Re: (Score:2)
'Duty' normally implies that someone with a vested interest in you doing something wants to construct an emotive reason why you should, because they can't justify it any other way.
A better term would be jury service, because you are serving your community, but servants still get paid, a butler will be paid ~ £30,000 \year - he may be a servant, but he's paid a stonking pile of cash because of the unpleasant stuff that he has to put up with.
In conclusion, I'd be more in favour of jurors being treated l
Re: (Score:2)
I served three days on a criminal trial once, and my friends and family still recognized me at the end of it. In fact, I was even allowed to go home and interact with (nearly) whomever I chose outside of normal business hours.
Also, you're ignoring the payoff of jury duty/service that if you are ever charged with a crime, you get to have a jury of your peers determine your innocence or guilt.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
"Overrated" was a chickenshit move.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
complete control of the jury's information feed will give the best and most consistent results for any party to the dispute
What I don't get is if you are going to reduce juries actions to an essentially mechanical processes what is the point of having a jury in the first place?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about, we live in 2010.
The average Joe is 10 times more educated than 300 years ago and will use that education when forming his opinion.
Allowing that person to read a dictionary, research terms, definitions, subjects, etc... allows for a TRUE jury of his peers.
Throwing them in there blind is the stoopidest shit every. Its about the theater of the court room, and a person can be thrown in jail because of the incompetence of the defense or the other way around (someone can walk because the prosecution wa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Jurors find this frustrating, but trials do not exist for their entertainment.
Trials do not always exist for the purpose of a just decision, either. How many times have Microsoft conducted confusing court cases in front of ordinary juries in an attempt to prevent justice!
To control what a juror may know or not know is an abuse of human rights; the whole reason a jury is involved is to get a decision from "the people". Putting "the people" in a cage and controlling what they know and how they may rule is the legal system's attempt to remove power from "the power" and place it back i
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
This premise leads to an outright absurdity.
First, you have lawyers speaking what looks like English but has only a thin connection to it. Would you feel comfortable sentencing a man to death in a trial conducted entirely in Mandarin Chinese (or if you happen to speak Mandarin, substitute any other language you don't know)? Except, this works out even worse, since the jury thinks they understand, but most likely do not follow key subtleties in either argument.
Second, I work as a software engineer. I know, even stated humbly and conservatively, vastly more about how modern electronic devices work than the average Joe. In a trial where such information means the difference between innocence and guilt, you either need everyone to have my level of understanding, or expect me to play dumb and listen to TweedleDee and TweedleDum argue about whether computers run by pixie dust or really small gerbils running on their wheels.
And finally...
What if the judge is pulling a fast one? That's not for the jury to identify or correct - that's what appellate courts are for.
BS. Every single aspect of the trial should enter the jury's consideration. We have Jury Nullification for precisely that reason. Think the judge has pulled a fast one because the government can't afford to let yet another drug smuggler go free on a technicality? Innocent by way of I-bloody-well-don't-feel-like-saying-guilty.
Unfortunately, that requires having a well informed jury, not the first dozen morons you could find who haven't the curiosity or resources to have watched TV in the last two months.
Re: (Score:2)
"Mr. expert person, sir. Isn't it true that INflammable also means flammable because of some nuance in the language?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's illegal to fire workers if they missed work for jury duty
But you don't have to pay them for work not done, and they've been making $30/day as a juror. How are they going to pay the bills?
Fine fine fine. (Score:2)
But please pay me more than 15 dollars a day for my pain and suffering, not to mention people thinking I'm dead after not tweeting or updating facebook for more than 24 hrs!
I do wonder how this would affect the jury selection process though. This isn't *suppose* to have any influence at all I am sure, but what if more people who don't use the internet end up being jurors? Kind of like only pro-death penalty people being allowed on a capital case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Serving as a juror is a responsibility as a US citizen, and whatever you get paid for doing so is an honorarium, not a salary. Payments for pain and suffering, on the other hand, are generally settlements for tort liabilites, and the honorarium you receive for completing jury duty is not compensation for completing jury duty. It is so that the normal expenses that you would not otherwise suffer (such as lunch and parking) become a net cost of 0.
News flash - you don't get paid for voting either.
If more peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'd prefer that retired people sit on juries - they presumably have a
PS (Score:2)
The extra cost is irrelevant - the amount of money used is the same, it's just a question of where it comes from. With my suggestion, it could ultimately come through taxes, but it would be spread across the entire population. With your system, most people don't pay, except the unfortunate ones who are stung with massive losses. Which is fairer? Which would give better peace of mind for people?
really? (Score:2)
people thinking I'm dead after not tweeting or updating facebook for more than 24 hrs!
Perhaps jury duty works differently where you are. The last time I was called in, I received notice several weeks beforehand. Ultimately I only went two days for a couple hours each day. I'm quite sure nobody thought I died in that time frame.
Furthermore this may actually only apply to jurors who are drawn for the trial (as opposed to alternates or extras), once the trial has begun. I would be surprised if more than a handful of people per year ended up being disconnected for more than 2 days.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you skip 'Civics' in Jr. High to get high?
What part of 'jury DUTY' did you not understand?
Pain and suffering? WTF?!?!
You self-entitled asshat!
1) A duty is something that I accept, it is not assigned to me by someone else who thinks that I ought to do it
2) Do you know what the difference between $100\day and $15\day is over the course of a month? $1700. How many months of being $1700 in the hole could you survive before your finances collapsed? And even if you didn't lose your home, you would still be down that much money to spend on whatever else you wanted to spend your money on.
OP's use of 'pain & suffering' may be a little over the top, bu
Welcome to the 21st Century! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At least one of those men was angry because he was missing a baseball game. Same thing, different decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they'd have to call it "12 Horny Men," a misleading title that would only attract a specific demographic, who would then be disappointed...
Pathetically ignorant and condescending (Score:4, Interesting)
I know about the artificial separation of judges deciding law and jurors deciding fact, but forget that for a moment.
Jurors are presumably supposed to use their judgment to decide the facts -- are the witnesses trustworthy, is their testimony full of inconsistencies, how do different witness's testimonies stack up against each other ...
But all this REQUIRES that jurors use their own knowledge to some extent. If a witness says something that is obviously wrong to a car mechanic but not an ice cream clerk, that mechanic darned well better tell the other jurors why he thinks the witness is lying. Jurors are expected to NOT drop their real-world knowledge at the door. (I am particularly thinking of My Cousin Vinny, where only a car fanatic would know vital clues about the tire tracks and what kind of car could have made them.)
Now how is this different from a juror who knows just enough to be wary of something and looks it up (NOT during the trial, but at home, or even during deliberations)? It's all fine and dandy to say that is up to the opposing lawyer to handle, that jurors are not police or investigators, but that is word games. If I knew something before the trial, I am expected to use that knowledge to uncover bad testimony. But if I acquire that knowledge during the trial, I am supposed to pretend I don't know that a witness is lying?
Maybe a case can be made for looking up a witness's past history, but even then I don't think so. If I knew a witness personally before the trial, knew he had a history of lying, knew he hated the defendant or was jealous of him or was in love with him, whatever kind of influence you can think of, that is part of my knowledge and part of how I decide what is true and what is false. Even if the only reputation they have is from always appearing in newspapers under unsavory conditions, I am not expected to forget all that when evaluating their testimony. And yes, I am ignoring the idea that prior criminal history is not supposed to be part of a defendant's current trial, but I also think that is bunk -- if some guy has been to jail a half dozen times for beating people up, that sure as heck is significant.
This all stems from olden times when jurors had no way of looking things up, and very little need. But the world is more complicated now, people know more and get around more, and I'd rather be tried by jurors who knew how to look up things for themselves rather than sit around like stupified monkeys.
Re:Pathetically ignorant and condescending (Score:5, Insightful)
The difficulty with jurors accessing material outside of the evidence led in court is that the party against whom that material is used has no means of challenging or testing it, since (a) it's not been disclosed to anyone outside the jury room and (b) even if it were disclosed, who's available to be cross-examined on that material? Are you going to go out and drag the journalist, dictionary editor, Wikipedia contributor, blog author, etc into court after both sides have closed their cases? How are you even going to be able to identify or locate that person?
Jurors (and judges, in judge-only trials) are limited to considering only what has been formally admitted into evidence to ensure that basic procedural fairness applies to all the material used in the case. Further, the public would be prejudiced in their ability to assess the result of the trial if they didn't know about all the evidence themselves, which can't happen unless it is all led in open court.
This doesn't stop jurors from applying the general knowledge and "common sense" of the ordinary person to resolve conflicts in the evidence as directed by the judge and after hearing counsels' arguments on the point, but the rules of evidence in most jurisdictions also say that if a party doesn't challenge a piece of evidence then the court is obliged to accept that evidence.
Finally, your point about criminal histories is based on a half-truth: criminal history is admissible when an accused brings character into issue, e.g. by suggesting that a prosecution witness is lying. Otherwise, it's on the prosecution to prove that the person committed this particular offence (at least it is outside the US).
Re: (Score:2)
Ug, you both make great points. I agree with both. Is there some kind of middle ground?
I think an informed jury is an effective jury, but I also agree that the accused has a right to challenge any information used by the jury to make their decision. Shit. How to rectify both?
Re: (Score:2)
If you knew a witness personally, any competent lawyer would have you rejected from the juror pool for that trial. If the rela
What if those jurors look it up (Score:2)
on Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. If by some nearly impossible set of circumstances they allowed me to sit on a jury for a trial that revolved around computers (e.g. log files, ip tracing, etc), you can be darn sure I'm going to try to explain to the jurors what's either right or wrong with what each side said. Of course, if the attorney for one side or the other is afraid of this, they'll find a way to get rid of me in voir dire.
Terrible editing on this non-story (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary here contains a pullquote that has been specifically edited in a misleading way to turn what is basically a non-story into a story.
The summary says:
Pay close attention to the ellipses after "communicate".
This quote appears to be from the committee report, but the committee report link is broken; it contains no href, just anchor tags.
The article says:
Not convinced yet? Here is the complete first paragraph from the committee report [uscourts.gov] mentioned, but NOT linked to, in the quote contained in the summary:
Emphasis is mine in previous two quotations. In other words, you are not banned from using these devices or services. The article mentions that you may not use these things to discuss or research the case. The networkworld article uses the inflammatory word "ban" in its headline (inappropriately) and the Slashdot post goes even further, deliberately eliminating context crucial to understanding the actual guidelines and replacing them with ellipses.
Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again! (Score:5, Funny)
Just wear a T-Shirt that says "Jury" on the front and "Nullification" on the back.
Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What about one that says "I'm too dumb to get out of jury duty?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're a perfect candidate for jury duty. They like the dumb ones.
They must BE the dumb ones if they actually take a T-shirt like that to be an indication of the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're a perfect candidate for jury duty. They like the dumb ones.
In fact all those advocating jurors to be caged and fed controlled information actually believe that jurors are stupid and incapable of their own thoughts. In fact the pompous legal system cannot handle an intelligent jury.
Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm certainly not going to agree to being sentenced to weeks of solitary confinement without having myself been accused of a crime. Even prisoners get to receive visitors and make phone calls.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck it, let's just abolish the jury system entirely, since all it does is get in the way of my TV watching.
Obviously anyone in court is guilty or they wouldn't be there, so let's just let the judge decide on the sentence and stop all that time-wasting with so-called "evidence" and the frankly tedious process
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not in the US... (Score:2)
Check out the Supermax [wikipedia.org] prisons in the US. The European Court of Human Rights barely allowed less restrictive conditions to be used for the Jackall (Big terrorist honcho from the 70s); Supermax prisons are effectively permanent solitary. Which does horrible things to the brain--effectively, it's torture by omission.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm certainly not going to agree to being sentenced to weeks of solitary confinement without having myself been accused of a crime. Even prisoners get to receive visitors and make phone calls.
Watch out, refusing to serve jury duty is punishable by jail time, which is suspect isn't as much fun as serving on a jury :-)
Best way to avoid being selected for a jury is to serve on one that convicts someone and selects a harsh sentence. If you achieve this you will forever be on the defense attorney's free strike list.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm certainly not going to agree to being sentenced to weeks of solitary confinement without having myself been accused of a crime. Even prisoners get to receive visitors and make phone calls.
Watch out, refusing to serve jury duty is punishable by jail time ...
No jury would convict on that!
Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again! (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, I'm certainly not going to agree to being sentenced to weeks of solitary confinement without having myself been accused of a crime. Even prisoners get to receive visitors and make phone calls.
Watch out, refusing to serve jury duty is punishable by jail time ...
No jury would convict on that!
In Texas, it is defined as contempt of court and only requires the judge to sentence you.. no trial involved.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Then you will go to prison if they catch you, and I, for one, hope they do.
Only an utter arsehole would want to undermine the jury system on the basis that it's a little bit inconvenient because you can't get your daily lolcats fix.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I concur absolutely. There are laws to protect people from being fired due to maternity leave, military service, etc. If there aren't laws in place now, there should be.
Jurors get paid something like $5 a day where I live. Seriously? $5 won't even pay for a single decent meal. If a trial goes beyond, say, 5 days, jurors should be paid a reasonable amount of money based on the current cost-of-living, and this money should be added to the eventual court costs. When a panel of jurors costs, say, $600-$1200/day
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Raises hand in court. "I have a question. I was surfing the web on my phone last night, googling the defendent's name..."
Would that be good enough to get kicked out of the jury during the middle of the trial?
Oh, and don't forget those sites that you can pay for background information about people.
If you're going to pull a stunt like that, do it when they are selecting, not in the middle of the trial. What you describe is just being an asshole messing with people's lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Just be effective and quickly agree to either guilty or innocent.
And if you are for jury duty there is as far as I know no demand that you do take a shower or change clothes. So if the process is prolonged too much you will have one stinking jury.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Uninformed Jury (Score:4, Informative)
to put it politely, bollocks... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for saving me the effort of finding the link.
We can argue whether slashdot is shilling for Apple this week, if there are more M$ turfers here now than in the past, and so forth. But the one thing I've really noticed is how many apologists for the legal community have shown up here over the years who have desperately tried to get the citizens of the US to throw away our rights.
Here, let me save you lawyers the effort. Shakespeare was NOT speaking in favor of lawyers [spectacle.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Darned tooting he read what you wrote -- did you?
Third, you do not have the right to nullify a trial, it is illegal to do so.
You said jury nullification is illegal in the US. It isn't. Judges may disallow lawyers telling the jury they have the right, but it is legal. Here, from the wikipedia link.
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.[33] 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.[34] In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction that "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification."[35] 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).[36] The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification.
Re: (Score:2)