Judge Declares Mistrial Because of Wikipedia 558
Pickens writes "The Palm Beach Post reports that a police officer convicted of drugging and raping a family member will get a new trial because the jury forewoman brought a Wikipedia article into deliberations. Broward Circuit Judge Stanton Kaplan declared a mistrial after Fay Mason admitted in court that she had downloaded information about 'rape trauma syndrome' and sexual assault from Wikipedia and brought it to the jury room. 'I didn't read about the case in the newspaper or watch anything on TV,' says Mason. 'To me, I was just looking up a phrase.' Judge Kaplan called all six jurors into the courtroom and explained that Mason had unintentionally tainted their verdict and endangered the officer's right to a fair trial. Mason does not face any penalties for her actions."
wow... (Score:5, Interesting)
So only an ignorant Jury is a fair one?
Or... (Score:0, Interesting)
perhaps if the juror had brought in a volume of Encyclopedia Britannica, things would be different.
Or if the defendant was not a police officer.
Or if his lawyer wasn't just elected to a position of a judge.
On Wednesday, the judge lowered Olenchak's bond from $100,000 to $35,000 and ordered him to turn in his passport within 30 days. Olenchak has been in jail since the jury delivered its verdict on Dec. 2, but relatives are working on posting bond.
Olenchak also will have to hire a new defense attorney. John Fry, who represented him at trial, won election in November as a county court judge and will be sworn in on Jan. 4.
Right thing to do. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:wow... (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, yeah, that's assuming the rules are fair and those administering it are fair. More often than not, they treat juries more and more like caged tourists, to be shepherded around and shown only the correct sites and the real stuff hidden in the background. This applies to jury selection and why judges and prosecute flip out at the phrase "jury nullification" because it shows a modicum of thought independent of the system.
Sometimes, instead of trying to pick out a most sterile jury possible, I wonder if a random selection of the available pool, sort of like /. mod selection, would be preferable. I also have to wonder about jury deliberation though, too much group dynamics and peer pressure... just as an experiment, it would be fun to put two jury boxes of 5 or 7 people on opposite sides of the room -- so the lawyers can't play up their drama as much as if they had a single unified audience and if at the end of the trial, both juries come to the same conclusion, that is the verdict. Different levels of crime would require the simple majority within both juries, some a super majority, and some unanimous.
Re:Would you prefer a completely clueless jury the (Score:5, Interesting)
I've served twice. If something came up we wanted more information on, we'd ask the bailiff, during a break, and he/she would pass the request on to the judge, and the judge would address it in some way, either with a description or by bringing someone in.
In my first trial, they had brought in a piece of defective equipment as evidence. During a break we felt that we should have a better look at it, so we asked, and were then allowed to go right up to it to inspect it in detail. This up-close inspection allowed us to come to a decision quicker.
Re:Would you prefer a completely clueless jury the (Score:5, Interesting)
This way, the only things that the jury learns are things that both sides agree are facts. Or, if it is something that is in disagreement, the jury learns that something is not a fact, but a point that one side says is true while the other side says it is false.
Isn't the entire point of a jury to decide what is fact and what is not? A juror that has the wherewithal to do his own research is going to be better prepared to do that.
The real reason juries aren't allowed to do their own research is because controlling the fact presented to the jury is one of the few ways the judge can control the jury. Judges will even exclude fact, that both sides agree are facts, because it might lead the jury to make a decision the judge disapproves of.
Sure, they dress it up as fairness. As if the truth could be prejudicial. If that were actually the case, we'd have judges ruling on what sort of evidence scientists can consider before they make their conclusions. No, the only way to make correct decisions is to weigh *all* the evidence.
Consider the "Exclusionary rule". It's intended as a deterrent to keep cops from presenting evidence illegally obtained. But to enforce this rule you must have tight control over what the jury knows. But we already have a deterrent for when people break the law. Prosecute the cops who broke the law to obtain evidence and you no longer need the exclusionary rule, and so you no longer need to control what the jury knows. So you have better behaved cops, and better informed juries. It's a win for everyone.
Re:Sorry, doesn't always work out that way.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because actually one of the purposes of the jury system is to act as a check on the ruling class. Refusing to uphold immoral or blatantly unconstitutional law is one of the major reasons to both having juries.
Re:Personally... (Score:2, Interesting)
When I served there was no such reminder of the proper channels. We were allowed to take notes, but not remove the notes from the room. Her problem, I'd imagine, having of course not read the article, was that she introduced new evidence into the case: an online definition of "rape trauma". She should have used whatever definition the lawyers gave her and if they didn't, they probably didn't for a purpose.
Yes, our justice system is dumb. Any system of justice which relies on ignorance and acting to prove someone's innocence needs to be rethought. And that may be the understatement of the year.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)