Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
from the knowledge-is-good dept
One of the most controversial subjects that we've discussed on this site is the question of whether or not juries should be barred from doing additional research on the cases they're reviewing. This is one issue that really gets people upset with me, including many who normally agree with me. I'll admit that I'm not completely convinced that letting juries do their own research is sensible, and understand the basic issues with rules of evidence, but there's a nagging voice in the back of my head that keeps asking what exactly is wrong with a more informed jury? Apparently, I'm not alone in questioning this. Christopher D. Dize points us to an article he's written (which mentions our previous article on limits on Barry Bonds' jury), which explores the question of whether or not these kinds of bans on research really make sense.He points out the reality of the situation. As Bonds' lawyers fight to keep certain evidence out of the case, the details of that evidence is widely available to anyone on the internet, and many potential jurors might see it. One way to deal with it might be to ban all such jurors, but in high profile cases, this becomes more and more difficult. From there, Dize points out that this view of a jury that can't do any research isn't quite as historical as some believe:
High-profile cases such as USA v. Bonds highlight the impact that Internet and social media are having on the ability to get an impartial jury and a fair trial. However, as Caren Myers Morrison has pointed out in her article, "Jury 2.0," forthcoming in the Hastings Law Review, the idea of "impartiality" does not necessarily require an ignorant or passive jury.Again, I recognize the potential downsides here. People can be misled. They can find information that isn't accurate, and there may be no one to tell the other side of the story. That's a serious issue. But does keeping a jury ignorant outside of two specific sources really present the best solution? Is there some third (or fourth) alternative, that gives the jury more leeway in seeking out information in a more supervised manner that allows the attorneys for either side to also present their arguments over the evidence, rather than just letting them present the evidence? Perhaps it comes down to: what do we want the jury system to do? Do we want it to help adjudicate the truth of the situation, or simply weigh two competing arguments? Something tells me that having them responsible for seeking out the truth could be more effective.
Professor Morrison, who teaches law at Georgia State University, points out that in the Nineteenth Century, the meaning of an impartial jury was more open to debate. To say a juror was "impartial" simply meant that he or she had no manifest conflicts of interest, i.e. the juror was not family, friend, or enemy of the parties. And it was not uncommon for jurors to have personal knowledge of the events and people involved.
As this country moved into the Twentieth Century, the idea that jurors should be ignorant of the facts and parties became solidified. As a result, today's jurors are dismissed with regularity for simply having familiarity or acquaintance with a defendant.
With Bonds' widespread popularity, the publicity of his case, and the swift ease of online research, all this begs the question: Can Bonds get an "impartial" jury, especially in San Francisco where Bonds played for 14 years, breaking numerous records and garnering worldwide fame? Or does the jury system need to bend back in time to give the home run hitter his day in court?
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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
Filed Under: barry bonds, impartial, juries
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Quite simply, they are not researchers. Can you imagine that appeals when someone is found guilty and they later find out that evidence not presented was added into the jury room?
Worse, can you imagine someone being found innocent, and then the prosecution moving for a new trial because the jury "failed to do extra research"?
Sorry Mike, this one is a non-starter. Once again, your failed fantasies of a perfect world come crashing down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
I would like to say it is absolutely amazing how you can allegedly read but not comprehend. Somehow, out of a post which was a combination of three things: a question, an opinion, and some quoted source material; you managed to manufacture from the aether some horrid offense which the author is undoubtedly guilty of. (In this case, apparently, delusional fantasies about a utopian legal system (an oxymoron, btw)).
I am amazed, astounded even at your level of skill. Is it an acquired skill, natural talent, or years of salaried practice? From the acuity of your post, you're either a top-end reporter at some puppet theatre (CNN or FOX news or something) or you're 11 years old and still having trouble grasping certain concepts presented in written form.
Either way, bravo. An amazing zinger you've got there. Good day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
Seriously. I don't know how he managed to get through the whole post and not realize that Mike was soliciting opinions about ways the system could be better.
We need better quality trolls around here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
There isn't some way to "make it better", without tipping the balance away from the rights of the person charged or the state's interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
That's the point - I'm not sure how you missed it. Shouldn't legal cases be about finding the truth? You are making the assumption that it is better to weigh facts presented by two sides than it is to determine what really happened. It has been my experience that when two people argue, both of them are usually wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
One of the key elements is that both sides get a chance to address the "facts". A system that would allow those facts to come in via outside research or "jury room intervention" would destroy that, and make the legal system meaningless.
While baseball fans might know a lot about the Bonds case, I doubt many of the rest of us (the sane people that can't stand watching a sport that rivals grass growing) give a crap. I have no idea what he did or did not do. Does it matter what I know just barely enough about him to say "I heard the name, I know what he does"?
If they are that concerned, perhaps they can have the court case in another jurisidiction, away from his "fans".
Exceptions or extreme cases should not be the basis of a legal system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
Actually, no, the prosecution has to prove the charges, show alternate possibilities, show where the evidence does add up to "he did it".
It's called "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way round...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Athenian style jury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
Fine, here's a simple system in which you can incorporate this. Allow jurors to do their additional research. Amend the legal procedure for a jury trial so that, just prior to closing arguments, jurors are allowed to submit 2 questions each on any points they'd like the lawyers to speak about. This can include clarifications of what was said during the trial or, more importantly, anything that was discovered during additional research.
Having it in writing will allow both sides to prepare and address the question. It should also keep the time impact relatively low. Doing it prior to closing arguments allows the attorneys on both sides to incorprorate the questions into their closings. Limiting it to 2 per juror also keeps the time impact low and keeps them focused on important questions.
I'm sure there are flaws and unintended consequences in this suggestion, but I'm havng trouble seeing them....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
Having a third party without bias involved in the case may make more sense. Another group to research and present evidence that was missed, overlooked, or hidden by one of the parties to the suit may help, but I'm sure that is a system ready for corruption as well.
It's all a mess. I say we settle everything with quick-draw contests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
Um, that's why my plan gives both attorneys a chance to respond to the questions/research. That's the whole point.
"Having a third party without bias involved in the case may make more sense."
There's no such thing as a 3rd party w/o bias.
"It's all a mess. I say we settle everything with quick-draw contests."
I like it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
But it does not address the information they learned but don't ask any questions about. I think that becomes a big concern when one party has more influence over the media. If they all read "he did it!" and believe it, why ask any questions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
Can you imagine someone appealing their case because the jury failed to "research completely"?
I know what you are trying to say, but it is incredibly impractical, and would lead to endless hung juries and appeals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
unfortunately, lawyers are trained in what amounts to rhetoric. juries aren't. which means that, to a point anyway, it's not a contest of evidence and facts, but of skill at misleading... and depth of pocket.
dueling may have it's (many) issues, but at least no one questions where any involved parties stand (err, except maybe litterally)... though the idea of using pistols always struck me as profoundly silly.
it is my opinion that an inquisitorial system makes a heck of a lot more sense than an adversarial one... though it does run into the problem of corrupt judges... mind you, so does the adversarial system, really...
at least an inquisitorial system would solve the stupid corporate tactic of sueing until the other party's lawyers fees bankrupt them even if there's no way to win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
I don't really see any problems with that method other than instructions to the jury sounding somewhat like something from The Exorcist:
"You may ask what is relevant. Anything else is to take a risk. The lawyer is a liar. He will mix lies with the truth to attack you."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
Quick...sign him up for a Jury. With no reading comprehension he likely isn't a learned individual, and thus is perfect for the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean "Can you imagine when the jury actually gets to see *all* of the evidence without filters?"
Yes, I can, and it's beautiful. I'd much rather gather information from many diverse sources than from simply 2 biased ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And how did you make the jump from the jury being allowed to research on their own to being forced to research on their own?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not always.
This concept is a relatively modern innovation - originally juries were responsible for investigation themselves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The above question is a non starter, at least if you live in the USA.
If you live in the USA you really need to read the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Otherwise, there are so many factors involved that a jury trial simply does not seem "fair" to me. I mean, jury members can be more easily manipulated than a judge (I guess), and they are not trained not to feel an immediate bias against any of the sides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's the fundamental argument of someone who cares nothing for the truth. To you, rules and procedures are more important than the truth.
Once again, your failed fantasies of a perfect world come crashing down.
Idealism is not a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you imagine jury selection - giving people a test in how to use Google, checking to see if they know what findlaw is, and so on. Perhaps they could measure the amount of internet traffic, and keep track of all of the sites they visit, looking for "correctable error" in their judgement.
There is also no way to separate the truth from fiction. No potential for the two sides to address the "facts" and to challenge their crediblity.
Legally, it's a non-starter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not that I disagree completely, but that sad statement is really the problem. Our legal system doesn't really even try to get to the truth anymore. Apparently, it has become so difficult that we no longer care.
It is probably impossible to get to the truth in a all cases, but a discussion about how to improve our chances seems worth having.
Oh, and fairness is nice, but how can any legal finding based on falsities be fair?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The truth has all it's chances to be in court. The people involved are the ones choosing not to bring it in the door. That is their problem, not anyone else's. It certainly isn't up to the jury to go trying to find it themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not really. Both sides are going to present the evidence that best supports their position. This would (in most cases) mean that NEITHER side is presenting the entire truth. You are making the assumption that one side is entirely truthful and completely in the right. While that may be true in some cases, the fact that we have a legal system at all suggests that this is not the case in all. The court system is not there to be a horse and pony show for people that have absolutely done something wrong, it is there because lots of disputes are really disputes and both sides have some merit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:the truth
Lawyers twist reality ALL THE TIME. Even if one side is completely truthful, it's fairly simple for the other side to confuse the issue considerably..
In many cases, it's trivial to clear the issue up on the internet especially on any technical matter... (Wikipedia is FAR more likely to be factually correct than anything you hear in the court).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Shall we use 'video evidence'? as an example. Pretty rock solid, unless the video was doctored. Should the video be allowed into evidence if you can't prove it wasn't doctored?
If a surveillance video was taken home by someone, is it still viable as evidence? The chain of trust has been broken in terms of the authenticity of that data.
Now what if that video was available online and the jury was able to research and see it. They clearly see the video, but they don't know that it was doctored because it wasn't 'proven' as a fact in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your example of video surveillance is an interesting start. Say there was a video on YouTube of a crime and the jurors found it. Now, say there is a news report saying that the video was doctored and does not really represent the truth. Now, there is another report that says what was doctored did not really impact the images of the crime committed.
A well-informed jury could sort through all of this. An uninformed jury could have parts of this information - say that there was a video, but the video was doctored (and they can't see the video). Which jury is more likely to come up with the truth?
A free-for-all is scary, but so is dangling small portions of the evidence in potentially misleading ways. I'm not sure which of these is better (perhaps neither), but it does feel like both are so bad that there must be a better third option out there somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Truth is only as cut and dry as the amount of context you have.
Person A shot Person B. Truth.
Person A is a cop. Truth.
Person B is a cop. Truth.
None of which determines if a crime was committed or not. The 'truth' is not just what happened, but the situation and details under which it happened.
The US system of trial by opposing forces (prosecution/defense) allows for relevant (and provable) data to be introduced. Every single case where the 'truth' wasn't introduced because of evidence rules can be traced to a situation where 'untruth' was introduced the same way.
Much like the statement "Democracy is a horrible form of government, but it's the best we've got" our trial system is the same way. There isn't a better system out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried
And I actually agree with you that our court system seems to be better today than those we have seen in our history, but what Churchill was careful to include in his quote (but you missed) is that there may be something better that has not been tried yet. So, excluding alternatives because "this is the only thing we have tried that comes close to working" is not a very good argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I almost agreed with the first AC
In any case, the job of the jury is to weigh the evidence presented, not what they may have read/heard/experienced elsewhere.
I think both sides of the adversarial justice system deliberately conflate "impartial" and "ignorant of reality". I think I can be impartial without being ignorant; even though I thought OJ was guilty as sin with the murder of his ex-wife, once the blood evidence was tainted it became a lot more difficult to convict based on "reasonable doubt".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I almost agreed with the first AC
The system has it's checks and balanced, and it has it's pressure for the parties to bring the truth. Why Mike would even both to ask the question is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I almost agreed with the first AC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I almost agreed with the first AC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That being said, I do feel like they are using the wrong standards for a high-profile trial like this. The question should not be "Does the juror know about Barry Bonds?" but rather "Does the juror care about Barry Bonds?"
Picking only jurors that haven't heard about Barry Bonds in the news will, if it's even possible, result in a jury that's considerably skewed toward complete recluses who do not read or watch the news at all, and such people may well tend to have a considerable bias in one direction or another.
What's more important is just that the jurors don't care about Barry Bonds: they shouldn't be fans of him or his team or any baseball team or the sport of baseball at all, and they shouldn't care much about steroid use in professional sports in general. It seems like these factors are far more relevant to the impartiality of the jurors than whether they read the news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At odds...
At the very least, there are three sides to every tale. There's your side, my side, then there's the truth, lying somewhere in the middle.
Juries are supposed to be a collection of your peers. People that you may or may not know, judging you based on that community's standards. The standards of Hollywood, should not apply to someone living in Macon, Ga.
Barry Bonds, being a "hero", in San Francisco, should be getting a decent trial. However, you'll find very few people that didn't hear about his testimony to Congress that was sealed. No matter where the trial goes, there may be a bias against Bonds for various reasons. It could be as simple as Bonds is a Giant and a fan of the Angels hates his guts.
But that doesn't excuse the fact that our judicial system keeps people ignorant. In ANY profession, if you have a tool available, you use it. This is akin to knowing about jury nullification. Maybe there's a stalemate in court. Perhaps, there's a hung jury. Or perhaps it's a waste of time for all involved.
Sometimes, the law really doesn't work to the benefit of society as it should. I'll grant that people shouldn't talk about every detail of a case, but if the information is already OUT THERE, then there should be merit in allowing people to filter out good and bad information in a case like this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At odds...
Could you clear that up? It's raising warning flags as I read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: At odds...
Ex. You have three children on a playground. One is hunched over crying on the slide, holding his cheek. Near him is a rock, while his knee looks freshly scraped.
You have two girls that are the only witnesses to the incident. One of them says "She threw a rock at him!" while she has a stick behind her back, trying to hide from you. You have yet to ask a question...
The second one says "She did it!" while her hands are empty.
Now, what did they do? And what do they have to hide?
Correct answer - Both probably tortured the poor boy at different times and were ratting on each other.
The point is, if you usually find a reason for people to lie, you can figure out what actually happened and possibly make better decisions.
Otherwise, we can all make stuff up far worse than the RIAA/MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At odds...
nonsense the truth is nowhere near the other two
it isnt black/white/grey
its red/blue/green/black/white/and everywhere in between
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: At odds...
the other colours simply replace grey in the black/grey/white sequence...
so... your objection doesn't make much sense from the point of view of the analogy...
and from any other point of view i can find looks far more like agreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We have centuries of law on the books regarding what constitutes valid, fair, and admissible evidence. We have laws against hearsay evidence and even more laws regarding various exceptions. The infamous Daubert case limits what scientific evidence can be used. (At one time, if you hired a scientific "expert" he or she could testify to anything he wanted. It was up to the jury to believe it or not. Now the judge has to conduct a hearing to ensure that the scientific expert's testimony truly proceeds from accepted scientific knowledge.
Your suggestion to let juries research issues themselves opens up the floodgates. It eliminates all the protections we've developed over the past several centuries. (Yes, centuries.) Jury could use non-scientific evidence to figure out scientific issues. They could use hearsay, hearsay upon hearsay, or just something someone made up online.
If you have the judge sitting there while they research, well telling them what they can and cannot look at, then you're not really allowing the jury to do research. Because the judge would only let the jury see what the attorneys want them to see.
And lastly, in our adversarial system, while not perfect, there is a huge incentive for both sides to push for as much evidence as legally possible. To think that there's some key research sitting there online for every juror to find, that none of the attorneys found, is simply bizarre. Certainly it's possible in very rare circumstances. But that mere and slight possibility is not sufficient basis for me to throw out all of our rules of evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A big problem with our adversarial system and all the rules of evidence is that both sides are assumed to have relatively equal amounts of resources and skill.
That is far from the reality. Whether it is a poor black man with a public defender in Texas accused of murder, or a billionaire with the best defense lawyer in the country against an overworked and underfunded prosecutor's office, the system we have is too prone to manipulation by one side or the other (usually the side with the most money).
Is allowing the jury complete and unfettered access to anything a Google search comes up with the answer? I'm not saying it is - but depending only on information presented by defense and prosecution has horrible pitfalls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The major problem here is this: in many/most cases the sides will push CONFLICTING evidence/testimony...
One of the sides may be twisting reality but if you are not an expert in the subject matter (and jurors are universally not) and are not allowed to do independent research, you have no way to judge. All the juror knows is that one of the sides is obviously lying. But which one?
What then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While the rules of evidence may seem arcane, they have not been created in a vacuum. They have been created over several hundred years in order to limit as best as reasonably possible the presentation of relevant evidence to a jury. Imagine, if you will, a prejudicial comment transmitted to a juror over the internet. Should the comment hold some measure of persuasive force over the juror, just how is the defendant to enforce his/her right to face the accuser in order to cross examine that particular accuser? This is, of course, but one of many scenarios that may arise.
Our judicial system has been able to function in many high profile cases while remaining faithful to the rules of law. It is not clear to me why this case would be any different.
Is the system perfect? Of course not. Nevertheless, nobody as yet has been able to figure out another system or additional rules of evidence that pay fealty to the basic, constitutional rights of an accused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hadn't considered that angle. +1 for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I might be mistaken, but I believe this is what a *judge* is required to do by the oath they swear. Jurys are allowed (but usually don't know) that they can do whatever they feel is best, even going against evidence and precedents through jury nullification. If it wasn't for this idea of complete jury ignorance, the poor people the MAFIAA convicts of file-sharing could get reasonable sentences instead of getting railroaded by the technologically illiterate who don't understand the issues and actually seem to think the statutory rates are reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A practical question
I can see no reason why a better informed jury would make poorer decisions. There are certainly cases where the jury would tend to find distorted information from independent research, but there are other cases where the jury gets distorted information in the courtroom, like say in the Mike Tyson rape case. But only balance, it would seem to favor better decisions by juries.
The only objection I can see is that people tend not to be very good at handling lots of information, and that their ability to decide increases the more information presented. Thus, perhaps, more information would tend to lead juries to acquit more often.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A practical question
Please defined "better informed". Remember that more information isn't better. Remember that "I found it on wikipedia" doesn't mean it's true. "I saw it on Fox News" doesn't mean it's right, and so on.
What wonderful, perfect source are you suggesting they should use to get "better informed"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A practical question
As many as possible!
You want as wide a variety of hypotheses, of rebuttals, or corrections, of counterarguments, of overviews, of dissents, of amendments, as you can get.
The truth is what's left after you've thrown out all the research, not what was found within it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A practical question
Can you imagine a copyright case settled when the jury only looked at the MPAA website?
How about a hate crime site where only the KKK was considered as a source?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A practical question
Who knows what opinions and biases lie within all of us.
So I'm not saying jurors should seek out facts as they research. I'm contending the point that more information isn't better. Because I'd believe that, provided it's coming from multiple sources, I'd think it is - not to provide courtroom evidence, but as a means of addressing the prejudices that the jurors already hold and entered the courtroom with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A practical question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rules of evidence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rules of evidence
Link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
truth? Pfft!
If finding the truth the system would be very different. For instance, any evidence no matter how it was produced would be allowed. If it was obtained illegaly there would be a subsequent process to handle that issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: truth? Pfft!
And what happens when society no longer trusts the courts to be able to protect innocents from prosecution or punish the guilty?
This is not just a theoretical discussion. There have been two major issues just recently in North Carolina. The state crime lab has completely ignored evidence that would have proved the innocence of suspects or omitted it from reports. And a sheriff who tortured two suspects into confessing. I don't think NC is particularly abnormal, so I can only guess what happens in other states that doesn't make national news. I certainly wonder how many innocent people the state of Texas has put on death row and executed.
I completely reject the notion of accepting the fact that our justice system is imperfect and this is the best we can do. Allowing some additional information to get to juries seems like it would help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at how hard they work to suppress jury nullification. While it is entirely legal and as much a part of our system of justice as juries themselves, the legal system has managed to marginalize it to the point that people that talk about it are personally marginalized and often, arrested for exercising their rights to free speech.
Most of the time, it's not about truth or justice anymore and frankly, I have no idea what to do about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I suspect that in every case, you could find one juror who "doesn't like the law". They push the big red button, and we get a nuclear result.
It is something that is meant for extreme circumstances, not every day use. What the people pushing for jury nullification are trying to do it is to nuke the justice system by having people push that button every day, in all cases. It is incredibly stupid, and the end result would likely be an amendment to remove that choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But making people aware of it shouldn't be vilified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New field of work
In truth, this may be happening already, just under the table. It would be interesting to see how changes in Googles algorithm could affect jury trials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone has preconceived notions..
I'm all in favor of Dark Helmets suggestion of allowing the Jury to ask questions in writing, except w/o the research part.
As for Jury Nullification, I would have totally used it on a case that I was on a possible jury panel for. In Texas if you've asked the person their age, they've shown you ID and several other things lead you to believe they are of legal age.. but they aren't.. then if you have sex with them you can be convicted of sex w/ a minor. I would have totally nuked that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everyone has preconceived notions..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need ESPN justice...
We should have something along these lines in the courtroom to point out the fallacies presented on the stands.
@OC, "If it was obtained illegaly there would be a subsequent process to handle that issue."
Committing a crime to attempt to prove another was committed is not a downward spiral anyone should want to start. By the way I like my 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment Rights just the way they are, thank you! Just back away from the Constitution and try not to use it to wipe your nose or ass with please!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why I miss raising the bar
I don't proclaim to have the answers but i sure as hell don't like being dictated to not think for myself and that my friends is a fundamental flaw in the jury system; and probably why if I ever get sequestered to jury duty its the answer to:
"Is there anything preventing you fulfilling your oath?"
"If it pleases the court, I am an independent thinker and I refuse to be dictated to without asking my own questions. Now if there was a system to ask questions to every source(again lawyer,witnesses,experts ect.) presented to me in a case then, and only then can I make a truly informed decision for thumbs up, thumbs down or nuke button. "
Wonder if this type of answer will ever be adopted into the minds of the law. Idealist that I am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike is mistaken about what it means to be "informed jury"
So what we need isn't openning up the gate to allow every bit of garbage information to influence the jury, but a basic logic and intelligence test on the juror to make sure they are capable of sound reasoning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike is mistaken about what it means to be "informed jury"
certainly the ideal for a juror though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and is it actually used in a useful manner or is the process of selecting jurors so screwed up that no one capable of doing so in a meaningful way is ever selected, because anyone with the knowledge base to meaningfully do so is, by the current methods of selection, not impartial?
significant factors all, i think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The rules of evidence slippery slope
We already know what this looks like. It's in comment sections all over the Internet, and it's not pretty. I'd say it's uglier by a few shade than what currently goes on in deliberation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Juries and independent research
In a law suit, one side is trying to mislead the jury one way (for the benefit of the client) and the other side is trying to mislead the jury in the other way (for the benefit of THEIR client, say, the State).
The Judge is, by law, not allowed to interfere except in extreme cases.
So, the purpose of the system is to mislead the jury; thus, OJ Simpson arguably gets away with murder.
We need a better system; perhaps with the Judge being apprised of what a jury member found, so that the sides can be told what the jury member found and rebut it, where appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]