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."
Personally... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Personally... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is actually a non-story. You just can't DO that, in ANY court. No newspapers, encyclopedias, nothing like that. Thanks to that one dumb juror, Broward County just wasted a lot of taxpayers' money.
I guess you have to partially fault whoever gives instructions to the jurors, as well.
Re:Personally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Jurors are supposed to ask the Judge if they are unclear on a definition or term used. The Judge will decide what outside information is acceptable. This was a mistrial because the Juror went out on her own to find the information rather than through the proper channels.
Re:Personally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, and juries can also request more information, research material, or clarification from the court. Wikipedia didn't cause this mistrial. A dumbass juror who broke the rules did.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Personally... (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically just ask the judge for the definition. One will be provided that has been vetted by both sides of the case.
Technical knowledge about the background of a case does NOT always get someone dismissed from a jury. This is because the attorneys on both sides of the case have a chance to question these people and decide if their technical knowledge is going to taint the case or not, and during the trial they can present evidence to help persuade a juror. Even someone with knowledge of rape trauma could get on such a jury. What matters more is if either side feels you are biased because of this knowledge.
The only jury trial I was selected for had about half the members being related to law enforcement, including a retired parole officer, despite common knowledge that such people are automatically dismissed... During selection process on other trials I have seen many people chosen for a jury that violated a lot of common knowledge about who is or isn't selected.
Re: (Score:3)
No. You want a jury of your peers, people like you. The experts are questioned during the trial to instruct the jurors in all the technical details necessary to make judgement.
Oh, gawd. I weep for our future.
-dZ.
Re:Personally... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. You want a jury of your peers, people like you.
If you're on trial for hacking and they weed out all the programmers from the jury, how the hell is that a "jury of your peers"?
Re: (Score:3)
You would think so. Each side (prosecution and defense) get to dismiss jurors. Generally, the lawyers like to have complete control of everything in the case - they want to define what (for example) 'rape trauma syndrome' means according to their expert witness so that it better fits their case.
Having a juror with prior knowledge of a relevant subject will probably be to the detriment of at least one side of the case, so those types of people are regularly dismissed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you expect that reading Wikipedia will give you the "absolute truth" of anything, much less the absolute truth in a case where two people are presenting different sides of an alleged crime?
It is the job of the court to determine "the truth" in such a case, and the process includes legal determinations of what information is relevant and may be presented to the jury. Y
Re: (Score:3)
I'm more disturbed by the fact that a juror taking a case seriously enough to want to learn more about the technical aspects would be vilified by anyone. It may have been against the rules, but an educated jury is certainly not the sort of thing we should be discouraging, despite what lawyers may believe. The information may have been erroneous, but that's why there are 12 people in the room to begin with; to hopefully counteract the stupidity of any one member. I think finding some sort of middle ground would be in the best interest of society as a whole. I don't see any reason why we can't make approved reference material available to a jury unless we really don't give a shit about the people on trial, but only the expediency of pseudo-justice.
It seems like you are trying to paint a picture where juries are asked to make decisions in a vacuum of knowledge. You don't see any reason juries can't have approved reference material because there is no reason and juries do have access to such materials as it is!
That approved reference material is called "evidence" and "testimony".
What this juror did in this case was to go outside of those approved reference materials and to the worst possible sort of reference!
How do we know the defendant didn't update
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I would never cite wikipedia, but it is still an effective tool while doing research.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't cited, the jury foreman was unsure of a specific phrase and used wikipedia to look it up. .
Bringing it in to show to others == a form of citation.
Re: (Score:3)
I was recently selected for jury duty. I was informed outright that I was not to speak about the case as expected, but the judge also warned that I was not to use the internet to do any sort of research on the case, and that all questions should be passed to the bailiff.
Why isn't this a standard procedure everywhere?
Re: (Score:3)
And just how do you expect the juror to know the difference when both encyclopedia's have a similar level of accuracy? Where does the line get drawn, tabloid articles, slashdot summaries?
There is a reason the guy in the big chair is called a judge, one of his main tasks is to judge what evidence is admissable and what lines of questioning are relevant. Anything outside t
Re: (Score:2)
It has been clearly documented that citing wikipedia [wikipedia.org] can be dangerous.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not allowed to look up material about the case. The definition of a term in general may or may not be about the case. That's a complex question of law. Say for example this rape occurred on an "Ottoman" and a juror looked up what that word meant...
Frankly I think the judge over reacted by declaring a mistrial.
Re: (Score:3)
They are not allowed to look up material about the case. The definition of a term in general may or may not be about the case. That's a complex question of law. Say for example this rape occurred on an "Ottoman" and a juror looked up what that word meant...
Frankly I think the judge over reacted by declaring a mistrial.
If that juror looked up "Ottoman" on Wikipedia and someone had decided to troll the hell out of it by replacing the content of the page with a snippet of the BDSM page and this picture, [wikipedia.org] that could be a problem.
The rules exist not because things like that happen constantly, but because they can happen. Excepting the rule on a circumstantial basis exacerbates the inevitable probability that such an exception is the wrong decision.
Rathering "ten guilty men go free than one be wrongfully imprisoned" and all
Re: (Score:3)
but you can turn that around. You ask the judge "what's an ottoman?", and he can tell you that it's the BDSM thing, because he wants to see the defendant found guilty. This is the risk of allowing a single person to be the final arbiter of 'truth'. Yes, I know that the defence could appeal the decision to give that as a definition, and even work their way all the way up through the courts, but that's still only about 20 people, at most. If the judges at the very top are as corrupt as, or in collusion with,
Re: (Score:3)
The point is not having your decision BIASED by public hearsay. Its accepted you come into court loaded with imperfect understanding of facts and concepts. But permitting people to look things up on the internet DURING a trial is pretty much the same as allowing the juror's decision to be coerced by Fox News or a mere website.
Re: (Score:3)
It's possible that she wasn't college educated or wasn't college educated when Wikipedia was around. Remember, jury members come from all walks of life.
Re: (Score:3)
That has to be the dumbest thing I've read on here all morning.
What, that they let high school dropouts on juries? I have news for you, buddy -- the uneducated have the same rights as you and me, and moreover, that's the way it should be.
Seriously. Well, after the judge getting pissed that a juror wanted to be better informed and *gasp* used the interwebs to do so.
Ok, strike the "you and" from "you and me", because you just showed your ignorance. A juror isn't supposed to, and shouldn't, hear anything but t
Re: (Score:3)
Yes they are. But they aren't part of the government and don't have the right friends. They aren't part of the elite in terms of education and upbringing. They don't read the same newspapers as lawmakers, do the same activities. In other words they offer a genuinely different perspective.
A person trained in law by the very sorts of people that made the laws would not offer that check on government. I'm very thankful for juries.
wow... (Score:5, Interesting)
So only an ignorant Jury is a fair one?
Re:wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
So only an ignorant Jury is a fair one?
The justice system is not a joke. If I was on trial I sure as hell wouldn't want the jury looking things up on wikipedia. As accurate as wikipedia is as a whole, there are still articles that are biased, incomplete, lack citations or any combination of those.
Would you prefer a completely clueless jury then? (Score:5, Insightful)
"If I was on trial I sure as hell wouldn't want the jury looking things up on wikipedia"
Well I'd prefer them doing some research rather than being a clueless bunch of fucks who make their decision about my freedom based on a hunch.
Re:Would you prefer a completely clueless jury the (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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, Insightful)
And what if no side called such a witness?
Assuming we're talking about a criminal trial, then you find "not guilty". It's the prosecution's job to prove the case. If they didn't, then they lose.
A civil trial is less cut-and-dry, but the same basic rule holds -- the plaintiff needs to prove his case. If he doesn't, then he doesn't win.
If they falsely assumed I have a clue while I don't?
Your lack of clue is actually part of your oath as a juror, to only consider the evidence provided to you in the courtroom by the lawyers under the observation of the judge. If they falsely assume you have a clue when you don't, that is their problem.
Re: (Score:3)
So, your wife disagreed with the decision but accepted it anyway? That is irresponsible.
-dZ.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Would you prefer a completely clueless jury the (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I'd prefer them doing some research rather than being a clueless bunch of fucks who make their decision about my freedom based on a hunch.
No, I want my defense team educating the jury rather than an anonymous edit on Wikipedia. I would also expect the prosecution to be fact-checking everything my defense team says, and the reverse would also be true.
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. This is core to the American justice system.
If they had to look something up on Wikipedia, then the defense team did a poor job. Thankfully, the justice system accounts for this & allows me to appeal with a new defense team.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry , but since when are lawyers experts on every possible area? Would you trust a lawyer to give someone the inside on computer hacking? No. So the lawyers just repeat parrot fashion what they've found out from somewhere else - possibly wikipedia.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry , but since when are lawyers experts on every possible area? Would you trust a lawyer to give someone the inside on computer hacking? No. So the lawyers just repeat parrot fashion what they've found out from somewhere else - possibly wikipedia.
Of course not. That's why you'd hear from an expert witness [wikipedia.org], you know, someone who testifies under oath and who both the defense and the prosecution agree can speak authoritatively about the subject at hand.
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: (Score:3)
Ther
Re:Would you prefer a completely clueless jury the (Score:4, Insightful)
The fear of having evidence excluded is probably a lot more effective as a deterrent for bad cops than the (non)risk of eventual prosecution if caught doing something illegal.
The fear of having evidence excluded is no deterrent at all. If you don't do an illegal search there is only one possibility, you will have no evidence. If you do the illegal search, there's at least a chance of getting the evidence admitted. Without a real punishment for cops when they break the law, there is no deterrent for illegal searches.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the problem. This is a *trial*. That means any assertion that bears on the outcome can be challenged by either side either to its accuracy, relevance or interpretation.
Suppose they jury convicts the defendant based on this wikipedia article. The defendant doesn't even *know* this has been brought into deliberations, and has no chance of challenging it.
I've just been through this. As you deliberate, you can submit questions. These are debated in the courtroom by the prosecutor and defense attor
Re: (Score:3)
You say that like the juror had no other means of research. She could have requested material from the judge. That is the right way to do it in a trial.
It's not that easy. For one thing, 11 out of the 12 jurors can't do that -- they have to convince the jury foreman to do that for them. And they can't do so anonymously. They have to admit their ignorance to 11 others, and then convince them that it's needed, and face the scorn of those who get irritated because it's going to hold them up for longer. I.e. an immense peer pressure.
And finally, they get one shot. They get a lecture that may or may not be what they wanted, and no chance to ask the expert
Re: (Score:2)
I would most definitely want a jury that was intelligent enough, and curious enough, to both desire and act on that desire to understand exactly what is being talked about in court.
To tell the truth, I don't see how researching terms used in court, so the implications of phraseology used by lawyers during the trial are fully understood by the jurors themselves, taints a jury. That isn't irresponsible or an attempt to defeat justice. It is, in fact, just the opposite. It's an attempt to make sure justice
Re: (Score:2)
EVERYTHING has some bias, we are human.
I hope the decision was not made just "because it came from wikipedia". I would look up the references, if the references are valid and from a trustful source (who decides that anyway), the jury decision shouldn't change, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I assure you that our justice system is a COMPLETE joke.
Many judges are bought and paid for, and after the OJ trial
its obvious that justice can be paid off.
Re: (Score:2)
"The justice system is not a joke."
Maybe you haven't had much firsthand experience with it, because I can assure you, it most certainly IS a joke.
The system does not work how we learned it is supposed to work in school, nor does it work the way you see on TV.
I went through a year long legal process over custody of my child, and I had seen friends and family have to deal with various aspects of the system. It's completely ridiculous, unfair, and not at all what the law specifies it is supposed to be.
Re:wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
So only an ignorant Jury is a fair one?
No, only a jury that follows the rules is a fair one. If you have a question or need more clarification on terminology, you ask the judge. The judge then takes responsibility for making sure the information you get is reliable, rather than some shit you found on the internet.
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.
Sorry, doesn't always work out that way.... (Score:5, Informative)
That doesn't always happen. My last jury stint involved a trial with more than one defendant and an invocation of the so-called "felony murder rule". The judge wanted each jury member to affirm that they would treat the felony murder rule as Gospel, AND made this demand WITHOUT any detailed discussion of its value or history. When I specifically asked for that, the judge flatly denied my request. So I did what any freethinker would have done: during lunch I "broke the rules" using the court house's free wifi and researched the felony murder rule on my Pocket PC.
Given my experience I'm not inclined to fault this woman for what she did, even though she was more surreptitious than I was. She likely figured the judge would have simply denied such a request, as the judge did mine. Our current juror system truly does favor ignorant valueless robots. I'm not happy at all making that observation.
Re:Sorry, doesn't always work out that way.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's precisely what I did (my shortest stint ever), BUT I couldn't even make that decision in the complete absence of information that the judge imposed. That was my point: the judge was preventing an INFORMED affirmation.
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: (Score:3)
To find guilt, there must be an offense. For there to be an offense, there must be a crime. If the rules forbid something but you don't find it to be a crime, the defendant has no guilt, only a responsibility. Since the court isn't interested in your findings of responsibility, the only verdict to be rendered is not-guilty.
That does not lead to lynchings, it leads to an absence of lynchings. Jurors don't get to make up new rules to suit them (that does lead to lynchings) but they can and should disregard a
Re: (Score:2)
Since the justice system ceased to serve the truth and became slaves to "the process".
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus, did you just read his first sentence and then stop? Here, let me repeat the GP's key point for you:
If you have a question or need more clarification on terminology, you ask the judge.
Re:wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about where the information comes from, it's about ensuring the defendant's right to examine the evidence against him. This is a critical part of due process, and if a juror brings outside information into the courtroom and bases their decision on it, the defendant will never have the chance to examine that information and respond to it.
Now, before you say, "But in this case, all the juror wanted was a definition of a word!", let me propose a hypothetical situation for you. Imagine that you are on trial for rape, and one of the jurors prints out the Wikipedia article on rape. It just so happens that the revision they've printed out contains an edit by some wacko that says "Any time a person has sex and then regrets it later, then the other person raped them." Now you have a juror circulating that bogus definition of rape around the other jurors, and you never get to know about it, so you never have the chance to tell the jury, "Whoa whoa, that isn't a legally accurate statement, and here's why." If the jurors had been forced to request such information from the judge, then even if the judge was stupid enough to print out a wikipedia article to define rape (which (s)he wouldn't), at least the defendant would know about it and could challenge it or bring it up to the jury.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes , because judges are omnipotent and know the answer to everything - oh wait , they have to go look it up too. I wonder where from?
No but the judge is in charge. For a jury trial, a jury has to decide only on the legal question of the trial. Juries have always been discouraged from doing their own research. Introducing other information may change the outcome of the trial and has the jury discussing topics not part of the trial.
For example if a jury has to weigh whether a defendant was deemed insane under state laws. Suppose a juror does his/her research on the matter and brings in information from other cases not introduced at tri
Re:wow... (Score:5, Informative)
Do fill us in on where the judges would get this reliable information from. They have experts in every area on standby at the end of a phone? Or do they just an encylopedia , maybe , gasp , even wikipedia?
Wherever the get the information from, it becomes part of the record of the case and, if necessary, can be discussed by counsel before delivery to the jury or, at worst case, used as grounds for appeal by either side after the fact.
Keeping accurate records of everything the jury was told in order to form a verdict is very important, especially if some of it is later found to be inaccurate.
Re: (Score:3)
Do fill us in on where the judges would get this reliable information from. They have experts in every area on standby at the end of a phone? Or do they just an encylopedia , maybe , gasp , even wikipedia?
Wherever the get the information from, it becomes part of the record of the case and, if necessary, can be discussed by counsel before delivery to the jury or, at worst case, used as grounds for appeal by either side after the fact.
Keeping accurate records of everything the jury was told in order to form a verdict is very important, especially if some of it is later found to be inaccurate.
What about the facts rolling around in their heads prior to being selected as jurors? Isn't most research basically the same thing, just shifted in time?
Re:wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've posted this before, but it bears repeating:
If you are a defendant in a criminal case, do you want the evidence brought against you, the interpretation of the law that is being applied against you, and any questions that the jury cannot decide for themselves based that evidence and interpretation to be available in an accurate record that you can cite in an appeal, or in a juror's cellphone browser history that walks out the door and never sees the light of day?
Yes, it is a loaded question, because if you had any experience with the legal system, you'd know that details like the rules of evidence, jury instructions, and the trial judge's handling of jury questions/special verdicts are critical in the attempt to ensure that jurors make decisions based on reliable and complete information in accordance with the law of that jurisdiction.
Wikipedia's definition of the terms, even if generally accurate, will not reflect the statutes and judicial interpretations that apply in any particular jurisdiction. I will guarantee that the jury was given an explanation of the concepts applicable to the case in that jurisdiction either during the oral instructions, in a written version of those instructions, or by both methods. The lawyers and the judge went over those instructions carefully to ensure that they were correct, because if they were not that's a potential issue for reversal on appeal, even ignoring the fact that at least the judge wants the jury to make a decision on proper grounds in the first place. Any additional information that the jury needs is supposed to go through the same vetting process, and be recorded in a written record, to in order to increase the odds of justice being done both with respect to society and any individual defendant.
The Wikipedia information that the juror brought into deliberations wasn't going to appear in the trial record. So what would happen if it was wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Question though. The Lawyers and the Judge are what we would call 'Domain Experts'. They are intimately familiar with the laws, concepts, and issues that will be introduced to the jury. The jurors are not Domain Experts. They are lay people. They may (and often are) of less educated back grounds.
If the judge and lawyers come up with the jury instructions as domain experts, I can say with out a doubt that the average jury will almost always have some portion of the members not understand, that forget, or rem
Re: (Score:3)
The [facts, education, and life experience] that the juror brought into deliberations wasn't going to appear in the trial record. So what would happen if it was wrong?
That's in the design, my friend. These are SUPPOSED to be thinking people. They were never, ever, ever intended to be unthinking robots only concerned with the law. If that were the case, the jury would be selected from amongst the bar, rather than from our 'peers'.
Re: (Score:2)
As others have said, there are rules when you're on a jury. The prosecutor and defense team lay out the "facts" as they both see them. You hear from experts on both sides who detail what they think happened (in their expert opinion). Then you weigh everything. Which side produced the most convincing argument. Did the defense's expert seem more reliable than the prosecution's? Or vice versa? If you don't know what something means or need clarification on some testimony, you send a request to the judge
I say potato and you say.. (Score:2)
So what makes a reference acceptable? I mean even the Encyclopedia Britannica contains errors or has entries that have changed / are out of date. And even the thickest dictionary doesn't contain all the words, for some things you just have to go to urbandictionary.com. I can't image many mainstream dictionaries having entries on a Dirty Sanchez, et al. while it could come up in a court..
In the end, I think Wikipedia should be an allowed reference source as long as _all_ (and not just from wikipedia) sources
Re: (Score:2)
A juror going to Britannica or urbandictionary would be equally disallowed. The issue is that jurors aren't allowed to do research on their own, not which resources were used.
The judge had even been explicitly reminding them of that; from TFA:
[Judge] Kaplan reminded her that he had warned the jurors every day during the three-week trial not to do any research on their own.
Sequester? (Score:2)
Re:I say potato and you say.. (Score:5, Informative)
So what makes a reference acceptable? I mean even the Encyclopedia Britannica contains errors or has entries that have changed / are out of date.
You're not allowed to bring Encyclopedia Britannica into jury deliberations either. No outside sources of information, that's the rule.
In the end, I think Wikipedia should be an allowed reference source as long as _all_ (and not just from wikipedia) sources are checked by the court later on.
The point is not accuracy, the point is to allow the court to control what evidence the jury has access to so that both sides have a fair shot at rebutting or clarifying anything that might otherwise hurt their case. The proper thing to do is for the jury to ask the judge for more information, and have the judge come up with with the encyclopedia article or other source deemed appropriate for the purposes of the trial, possibly in consultation with both the prosecution and defense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's like the other guy said. The entire system is rigged to make sure the jury is completely ignorant.
Ensuring that the jury can't call bullshit on some bit of rhetoric or evidence is not justice.
Re:I say potato and you say.. (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's like the other guy said. The entire system is rigged to make sure the jury is completely ignorant.
Ensuring that the jury can't call bullshit on some bit of rhetoric or evidence is not justice.
No, the only ignorance here is what you are displaying. The jury has the right to request clarification on a term (in this case, they used the term 'rape trauma syndrome' in the court case and a juror didn't know what it meant) and then the judge, in consultation with the prosecution and defense, will provide the jury with the definition.
As others have mentioned, Wikipedia can often be very incorrect. But in addition when dealing with terms tied to technology or medicine, there may be many interpretations of meaning depending on who you ask. (As a programmer, I have a different definition of 'hanging process' than a lawyer does) It is important that the jury is understanding the terms used in the trial as the prosecution and defense are using them, and you can't do that with a quick hop to Wikipedia.
That's why the jury is not supposed to be relying on outside information. If the prosecution says 'rape trauma syndrome' means butterflies and rainbows, and the defense agrees with that definition, it's utterly irrelevant to the case what the real definition is, because that's not what the prosecution and defense are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, that is just a great way to have the judge (and whatever potentially lame ideas he has on issue X) pushed on a ignorant jury.
What if the judge thinks that 'rape trauma syndrome' is some made up condition? Or as tends to happen one side will put a 'expert' on the stand who may be full of crap about it and say whatever helps side X? Not allowing outside sources means only the aspect presented within the courtroom ever gets heard. That's like asking for bias.
I'm not saying wikipedia is a great source
Re: (Score:2)
Countering sources of factual information is probably the stupidest idea I've ever heard. And if true is probably why law is fucked up.
Those on the jury already bring in their own library of previous information 'sources' and their own opinions. While US courts seem to specifically try to find the dumbest asshats that have the least opinion on something possible, is a horrible way of doing things. It does make it easier for those lawyers to present their skewed view of the world on a jury though...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I say potato and you say.. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're not supposed to look at any of those; you're only supposed to use the information given to you in court.
My understanding is that's not correct. You are only supposed to use the facts of the case as presented in court. Learning about terminology and/or phraseology used in the court, AFAIK, shouldn't cause a mistrial.
As someone else pointed out, Wikipedia is well known for incorrect information but I'm not really sure how that differs from someone walking about with an already incorrect and/or incomplete and/or complete ignorance of the definition/phrase/terminology.
But ultimately, judges are emperors of their own kingdom so they frequently get latitude to create their own rules. I have no idea of this is one of those situations or not.
Re: (Score:2)
If she had brought in a pages torn from volume of the Britannica it would have been the same
The point is not that it is from Wikipedia and so unreliable, it is that it is from anywhere that has not been approved as reliable enough by the judge or the defence and prosecution, anything can be brought into evidence however unreliable as long as all parties agree, and anything not approved however reliable can cause a mistrial ....
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't just allowed to use information that was provided during trial, legal terms can be thrown around in court yet never get explained to the jury. The juror should have asked the judge for clarification about the topic, at which point the judge would have provided background material that was legally sound or at least neutral. Any reference material that wasn't cleared by the judge would have been equally bad, it's not just Wikipedia being singled out.
In theory this is the kind of thing (ignorance of
Re:I say potato and you say.. (Score:5, Informative)
really? the whole thing is coming down? could have fooled me.
I could have sworn that it's still going strong as a moderately reliable source of information which is vastly more accessible than almost any other in history.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't sustain an encyclopedia -- or any product of value, really -- in a culture of agenda-driven elites with no fear of losing their jobs if they err.
As opposed to people with fear of losing their jobs if they don't follow the boss' editorial line?
No encyclopedia is perfect; at least Wikipedia as the History and Discussion pages which help you to assess if there is an editor/contributor deleting valuable contributions because of his/her bias. That's more than you get with paid encyclopedias.
What? (Score:2)
How can an encyclopedia taint a verdict? Isn't it the task of a court to understand the vocabulary used in a trial? And what would have happened when had read the article before the trial? Or even before the accused has done anything? However, I do not understand that jury concept in all aspects. As we normally only use two jurors beside one or more judges. And the jurors get prior training before working as jurors. But I know that is a little different in the Anglo-Saxon world.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
The definition of 'rape' in a Wikipedia article may not be the same as what is on the Florida books. And they had been instructed, as is usual, not to do any research on their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Definitions when used for the purpose of law are not always the same as definitions in general speech.
It sounds more like this comes down to jurors using external references to assist in making decisions. I would expect that jurors are instructed not to bring in external references of any type, and she did.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct. IANAL, but look up a "Markman Hearing" and you will be astounded as to how much court time is given to defining terms. And this is just patent cases.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the issue is that by seeking, reading and bringing to the jury room information on Rape Trauma Syndrome she was promoting the idea of the "alleged victim" as simply "victim". The jury were there to decide whether the accused committed the rape, it could be argued that the forewoman's actions prejudiced the jury in that decision. If she had read it before that's fine because she didn't know what case she was going to be on.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How can an encyclopedia taint a verdict? Isn't it the task of a court to understand the vocabulary used in a trial? And what would have happened when had read the article before the trial? Or even before the accused has done anything? However, I do not understand that jury concept in all aspects. As we normally only use two jurors beside one or more judges. And the jurors get prior training before working as jurors. But I know that is a little different in the Anglo-Saxon world.
If during the voir dire portion of the jury selection, it came out that any candidate for the jury had read anything about the term (in this case 'rape trauma syndrome'), they would have been excused.
One of the best ways to be excused from jury duty is to be well read, and be able to answer to your knowledge. It has pretty much been the reason why I have never been empaneled on a jury in my history.
Both sides look for different characteristics, but they unanimously want people ignorant of the facts and t
Re: (Score:3)
How can an online editable encyclopedia taint a verdict? You can't fathom how something that could be written to by either the prosecution or the defence during the course of a trial could taint a verdict?
Re: (Score:2)
A dictionary does not go into the definition of 'rape' or 'rape trauma' as it exists in Florida law.
Jurists with knowledge results in mistrial (Score:3)
Do we REALLY want a justice system where the jurists are encouraged to be ignorant?
When searching for "reference materials for juries" I came across numerous links to some of the most absurd things. One example of jury misconduct was listed as using a dictionary for the purpose of understanding a legal term.
When jurists actually want to know and understand what is going on and how things work, I am encouraged that the justice system "wants" to work as it was intended. But when I see the officers of the legal system blocking certain aspects and elements of the justice system, I have to feel disappointed and disheartened.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about juries the request information from the court?
Jury duty? Check brain at the door. (Score:2)
Well, if I'm ever called up for jury duty, I guess I would have to check my brain at the door. I read a lot of stuff about all kinds of shit in The Economist and also Wikipedia. I don't need a printed copy to recite what I have read.
Oh, I have been called up for jury duty. My mom called the number to explain that I live on a different continent: problem solved. When my dad was called up, he told me that both the prosecution and the defense would try to toss anybody with half a brain from the jury pool.
Right thing to do. (Score:3, Interesting)
No, There was No Mistrial Because of Wikipedia (Score:2)
As it has come out in the comments below, the headline is plain wrong.
The judge declared a mistrial because a juror did something jurors are not allowed to do; bring outside information into deliberation. That the information in this case happened to be a wikipedia article is hardly relevant. In fact, it is a poor attempt to make a common "illegal stuff deemed illegal"-case interesting for it computer.literate.
Next: trial cancelled because of Weak Leaks (Score:2)
A trial had to be cancelled because of leaks in the courthouse's bathrooms !
Amazing how eager some are to give up fair trials (Score:5, Insightful)
Declaring a mistrial here was the only effective way to guarantee the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial, including the right to examine the evidence against him. There's quite a bit of jurisprudence on the use of expert testimony to make sure it's relable, and allowing the jury to just Google whatever they want for information just tosses that process out the door.
Imagine you've been falsely accused of child molestation, based on the faulty science of "recovered memories." Would you want the opportunity to challenge the evidence against you through cross-examination, or would you prefer it if the jury could just pull up some article written by a quack and be swayed by it, with no chance for you or your defense to explain the basic fallacies it contained?
Re:Amazing how eager some are to give up fair tria (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine you've been falsely accused of child molestation based on the fault science of "recovered memories". The judge considers this settled science, so your defense team cannot question the scientific basis of the evidence. (This happens all the time with fingerprints). Wouldn't you want the jury to be able to do some research on their own to discover that recovered memories are a load of shit?
prosecutions fault (Score:2)
I've been on a jury a few times (just lucky, I guess), and there is usually an expert brought in. Sometimes the prosecution can just get the psychologist or lab tech who is on staff to explain their measurement/diagnosis. The problem is, no matter how good the expert is, the prosecution MUST ask the correct questions or the jury is totally confused about the facts of the case. That is a major pain in the ass during deliberations. There are some people who, despite clear instructions from the judge, just
Comment removed (Score:3)
Assange (Score:2)
This is all Julian Assange's fault!
Wikipedia must be shut down!!
The Internet must be brought under control!
Re: (Score:2)
So a judge enforces a pre-established rule ("no external research") set dozens of years ago and you assume corruption?
You sound like a friend of mine, who complained the cops stopped her because she's black, when she was driving 140 kph and the limit is 120 kph.