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.

Filed Under: iphone, jurors, research

Juror Didn't Disclose MySpace Friendship With Defendant... Because It Was Just MySpace

from the talk-about-damning-myspace dept

Here's a fun one. An appeals court in West Virginia has granted a new trial to a defendant because one of the jurors failed to disclose that she was a "friend" on MySpace with the defendant and had sent him a message during the trial. The message itself was mostly meaningless ("I can tell ya that God has a plan for you and your life..." etc. and even mentioned "Hey, I don't know you very well"), but the juror never bothered to mention that she knew the defendant at all, let alone well enough to be a MySpace connection. When asked why, she answered:

I knew in my heart that I didn't know him . . . I should have at least said that . . . he was on MySpace, which really [wasn't] important, I didn't think.

Ouch for MySpace. Either way, a new trial has been ordered, and yet again questions revolving around social media in the courtroom need to be tackled in court.

Filed Under: disclosure, friendship, jurors, social networking
Companies: myspace

Why Shouldn't Jurors Be Able To Use Technology To Do More Research?

from the yeah,-that's-not-going-to-work dept

We've pointed out in the past that, eventually, the judicial system is going to have to come to terms with the fact that people use technology to research and communicate, rather than trying to pretend it can be stopped. But, it sounds like that's going to take a while. Courts are increasingly looking to ban jurors from using any kind of technology. And yes, before we go through this again, we understand the arguments why courts do this (so no need to keep repeating it in the comments like last time). The question is does this really make sense? The idea that you have no outside influences in making a decision as a jury is an idealistic fantasy anyway. Jurors always make decisions based on their own history and experiences. It's part of what makes a jury a jury. Otherwise, you'd just have one guy who would weigh all the facts in a case and who would always pop out a perfect decision. So, if we can admit that jurors are always bringing outside information (in the form of their own life history and knowledge) into the court room, can't we at least begin to understand why there's an argument for letting smart jurors make use of technology to better understand the issues at play?

Filed Under: juries, jurors, research, technology

Jurors Cause Trouble By Friending Each Other On Facebook, Using Wikipedia For Research

from the no-friending-allowed dept

We've discussed numerous court cases where modern technology has caused significant procedural problems from "the old ways" of doing things. CitMediaLaw points us to a story that includes two more cases, both in Maryland. In one, lawyers are seeking a new trial because some of the jurors became Facebook "friends" during the trial. This follows on the news that Florida is forbidding judges from friending lawyers on social networking sites, but is it reasonable to prevent jurors from friending each other? For many Facebook users, "friending" people you meet is quite natural and something you do almost immediately upon meeting someone new. So it should be no surprise that some jurors would choose to quickly friend each other. It's hard to see how that would make the results of the jury verdict suspect, however.

The second case involved jurors using Wikipedia to look up some terms. This is hardly a new concept. Some judges these days are specifically warning jurors not to use the internet to look up anything related to a case, but for a generation of folks who consider internet research to be an adjunct part of the thinking process, it's not hard to recognize why many would ignore this, and not think they're doing anything wrong (and they might have a good argument). The real question is whether or not there are reasonable ways to change the way the jury system works to allow for what many people consider perfectly natural: doing additional research on their own. For those who are comfortable with the old system, this may seem like a horrific idea (and yes, we all understand the reasons why the current system wants to limit things to just what's said in the courtroom). However, at some point the system may need to recognize that an artificial constraint on learning about the details of the case may not actually be the best system.

Filed Under: friending, jurors, jury, research, social networks
Companies: facebook, wikipedia