Juror Using iPhone To Look Up Definition Of 'Prudence' Leads To Mistrial
from the dear-prudence... dept
We've had a number of stories recently about juries getting in trouble for using forbidden technology while on the jury -- and some of our most heated discussions have been over whether or not it makes sense to block these tools from jurors. Of course, for now, the tools are very much blocked, but it certainly doesn't seem to stop anyone from using them. The latest such case involves a juror who used his iPhone to access Encarta to look up the definition of the word "prudence," since the ruling in the case was dependent on whether or not the jury felt the accused had acted with "prudence." While the lower court refused to grant a new trial, the appeals court reversed, noting that "using the smartphone in this way was analogous to using a dictionary, and that conduct has generally been prohibited in juror deliberations." Separately, I have to agree with Evan Brown (who wrote the story linked above about this) in pointing out:Ed. note: If the jury foreperson was savvy enough to use an iPhone, why on earth was he consulting Encarta? Hello, 1995 called -- it wants its web pages back.Honestly, I think the last (and perhaps only) time I ran across Encarta it was still in the heady CD-ROM days, and my first reaction on reading this story was to wonder how one used an iPhone to access a CD-ROM.
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
thats why.
Thats where dictionary.msn.com goes to. probably searched dictionary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its is dictionary on line , a simple search would have found it , not so surprising , if you remember for a lot of people this was the first encyclopedia that they ever used so looking for info
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm ignorant so I will ask, why is using a dictionary in jury deliberations bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, jurors are supposed to base their decision on nothing other than the evidence provided during the trial. A dictionary is information other than that provided in the trial.
If a juror has a question about something then they are supposed to ask the judge for information.
I'm not entirely sure why this juror did what he did. I mean, it's not like they hide the fact that you're not supposed to look shit up. If it were up to me I'd jam that phone down his throat. I mean, the judge clearly instructed the jury not to do this (as they do with every trial).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They say justice is blind - but does it have to be deaf and stupid as well!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am so tired of getting kicked off the jury panel during the voir dire process that I started asking the jury commissioner if they could just stop calling me in if they ask me to come in 20 times in a row and I never get on a panel. I am at 23 times called, and have never been a juror on a trial (I was an alternate once, but that was because they ran out of challenges and figured as an alternate, I'd never get a chance to deliberate, and they were correct.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Isn't the Judge/Defendant/..etc using the word IN Context?
And in that case, why aren't they given a Legal Dictionary and allowed to look in that??
And, what if the other Jurers already walked into this case having already looked up "Prudence" in the dictionary "before" the trial, would they also get dismissed? And if not, why not? The end result is the same, isn't it?!
And what about knowledgeable Jurors? What if the Juror is just very well read, and knows the dictionary term beforehand? Are they prepared to make that kind of distinction??
If the Judge was speaking in terms that you didn't understand, would you just admit ignorance and try to do your job as a jury without understanding what is being said? Does that make sense to anyone? And asking the judge is just ridiculous, how would that trial look like if every few minutes a Juror interrupts the judge to ask him about a definition?
Honestly, I would do the same thing as the Juror! I won't sit there and pretend to understand what is being said, and on top of it all come up with a verdict too?
Does the law require me to come up with a verdict while I'm blissfully ignorant of what is happening?
Absolutely Ridiculous!! A Dictionary is common knowledge, its defining words that we use every day in every situation, its not information that can compromise or bias a Jury!
This law makes no sense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I guess I picture an ideal scenario where there is a Star-Trek computer in the Jury deliberation room, where you can ask it questions and it can only respond in a way of the court's satisfaction, and all computing devices can then be barred.
Since courts and attorneys and judges use a language that is not in general public use, is this reasonable to ask a judge for a definition of every legal word?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But since everyone already beat me to it, I will just say that we probably should just lock jurors in a room with a cell jammer until we figure out a way to deal with this. Such as just allow jurors to use whatever info they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that really standard protocol? (I genuinely don't know). I suppose you're expected to ask the judge for explanations?
I just don't see how using a dictionary in a jury room is somehow going to wreck a case for someone. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the quote...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
and generally that would be the side that was in the right - obviously that can't be allowed to happen.
Seriously this is ridiculous. Most of the jurors probably had their own ideas of what "prudence" means - formed long before the trial from outside sources.
How is that any different from looking the word up? In fact the result of the trial will inevitably depend on such outside influences - because without them the jury wouldn't be able to understand a single word that is said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes and yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem with the legal system is that is uses words know one knows to define other words know one knows.
If a juror does not understand a word, the jury instructions should be made clearer,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious
I hear that the UK prison system is exploring possibilities of installing jamming equipment in the jails. As mobsters are using mobile phones to run their business from behind bars.
Similar system could be used in court, Yes? No?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The iPhone can't read CDs? Shocking!"
- I wonder if there's an App for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
if the camera is good enough, could you take a picture of the back and get information? i suspect the laser beam is much thinner than a normal picture would give... but it may not be outside the realm of possibility in a few years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judges Are Hostile To Juries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I look up words I 'know' all the time - to be sure that the common meaning that I know is actually correct, or to ensure I'm not mistaken when context suggests that there's a subtlety I'm missing. To never feel that need is indicative of arrogance, IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But.. but.. That's the entire point of the US "Jury Selection Process"! The most reliable way to get out of jury service is to demonstrate that you're educated and know something about the matter under consideration.
That, or find some way to mention "jury nullification", though this can get you into trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The hypocrisy of our justice system!
Oh yeah, Judge on jury, emails other judges about the case while he is ON the jury, he even sent one to judge over seeing the case!!!
Not even a slap on the wrist for the emailing judge, no miss trail, notta!
What a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The hypocrisy of our justice system!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The hypocrisy of our justice system!
They made a huge stink about this and court found the judge of doing no wrong doing and things just go back to normal in la la land, while this guy sits and rots in prison for a crime he may or may not have committed, it is really hard to be sure being that he didnt get a fair trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Each side presents jury instructions including definitions of words that are considered important citing statute or case law in support of the definition desired. The Judge after discussion with both counsel if needed then instructs the jury as to the law of the case that they are to follow.
A definition from the internet does not take into consideration the fact that many words when used in a legal sense become "terms of art" with specific meanings when used in a case-- hence jury instructions.
Can't use a dictionary, can't use the internet. Low tech or high tech, it doesn't matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In conclusion, the jurors were too stupid to be worthy of the trial. Or maybe they were so smart that they pretended not to know what prudence means so that they can get out of jury duty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do love that Internet Cases blog, though! Always good stuff on there.
http://blog.internetcases.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=search+engine+market+share
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If Google were to do that M$ would demand that some AG hit them up for antitrust violations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"savvy enough to use an iPhone"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]