Jury Can't Google
from the can't-touch-the-internet dept
Apparently a rape conviction has been overturned and a retrial ordered after a member of the jury used the internet to research the crime of rape. That juror apparently printed out the documents and brought them into the jury room as well. This gets increasingly tricky in an information age, when doing additional research has become like second nature to many people. For some people, it's probably almost impossible not to call up Google and do some extra research if they're asked to make a difficult decision, such as deciding someone's fate as a juror. The problem, of course, is that the defendant's lawyers have no chance to see what the jurors are reading or to rebut the claims they make. However, in an age where Google seems like an extension of the brain for many people, this sort of issue is going to come up more and more often.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
juror doing own crime research
The judge always warns jurors very carefully not to do their own research.
Jurors usually understand they should not discuss the case with intimates, should avoid newspaper and radio stories, etc. This is just one more OBVIOUS thing not to do.
Since the juror brought his material to the other jurors, I'd like to see him sued for the state cost of the original trial.
- precision blogger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gray area or fuzzy thinking?
While it's true that a juror is not supposed to discuss the case with outsiders, that's not what happened here. The juror used background information on the topic.
No juror is a blank slate before he or she walks into the box. If the juror had read this material a few weeks before, and then in deliberation had recited it to the other jurors, there would be no issue at all. The problem only arose because the research happened after voir dire -- the attorney's chance to weed out inappropriate jurors, whatever that might mean.
Moreover, the Judge is incorrect in at least one matter. He's quoted as saying, "the defendant in particular, but the public too, is entitled to know of the evidential material considered by the decision-making body". This is wrong, as it's utterly unenforceable given the privacy of jury deliberations (and indeed, the personal deliberation of each of the jurors in their own minds). There can be no way to know which aspects of evidence each individual juror chose to ignore, nor what implied evidence (e.g., the facial expressions of a witness) they did consider.
This is closely related to the concept of jury nullification, an issue of some debate lately (see FIJA, the Fully Informed Juror's Association's website). Judges routinely lie to jurors, instructing them that they must decide cases based solely on the law, regardless of their conscience and whether they believe that the law is wrong. This is incorrect, with a ton of case law to back that view.
Just as in the Nuremberg Decision, we each must answer finally to our own consciences. In civics classes we're taught about checks and balances between the branches of government. The jury in a courtroom is the people's final check against an unfair government: a juror can, in the final reckoning, effectively veto a bad law.
I'll get off my soapbox now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gray area or fuzzy thinking?
During the case, an enormous legal apparatus tries to achieve fairness by determining what evidence can be placed before the jurors.
Jurors who go out on their own to gather evidence or look at arguments are defeating one of the essential means to provide a fair trial. That's why they are clearly told not to do it.
It would be the exception - not a normal situation - where I, a juror, decided that justice was apparently so perverted that I had an obligation to break the system and gather evidence on my own. In doing so I would be obeying a high ethical standard, but also I would know I was breaking the laws of my own country, and expect to go to jail. Again, this would be AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE. In the USA, the only likely situation I can think of is a juror in a first degree murder case who can plainly see that a defendant is being railroaded and has no decent legal support.
- the Precision Blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evidence or background
As you re-phrase the argument, you would be correct. But the original story does not accuse the juror of getting additional evidence. Rather, it was simply background information.
Imagine that you were deciding a case on the liability for an auto accident (as I once did). I agree that it would be wrong to, say, go to newspaper accounts to find quotes from bystanders.
But what about looking up information on the history of the automobile, or maybe looking at an article describing the physics of Newtonian motion and conservation of momentum? I don't see any problem there, and it seems to more closely parallel the case at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just one more reason why I'm never going to serve
All I can say is I just hope I never end up as a defendant, to be judged by "my peers".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loophole
[ link to this | view in chronology ]