Posted by Lisa G.
Social media has come to jurisprudence, John Schwartz writes in today’s New York Times, and the result has judges, attorneys and legal scholars flummoxed.
Why is this a problem? Schwartz explains:
Jurors are not supposed to seek information outside of the courtroom. They are required to reach a verdict based on only the facts the judge has decided are admissible, and they are not supposed to see evidence that has been excluded as prejudicial. But now, using their cellphones, they can look up the name of a defendant on the Web or examine an intersection using Google Maps, violating the legal system’s complex rules of evidence. They can also tell their friends what is happening in the jury room, though they are supposed to keep their opinions and deliberations secret.
A juror on a lunch or bathroom break can find out many details about a case. Wikipedia can help explain the technology underlying a patent claim or medical condition, Google Maps can show how long it might take to drive from Point A to Point B, and news sites can write about a criminal defendant, his lawyers or expert witnesses.
“It’s really impossible to control it,” said Douglas L. Keene, president of the American Society of Trial Consultants.
In this information-wants-to-be-free era, some jurors just don’t understand why they can’t Google the defendant’s name or double-check facts presented by an expert witness. Others claim to be striking a blow for fairness, saying that rules of evidence are “elitist” because the trial court controls what information the jurors see and hear.
In one case, a juror confessed to looking up information on the case during deliberations in a federal drug trial. When the judge questioned other jurors, eight of them said they’d done the same thing. The judge declared a mistrial, “a waste of eight weeks of work by federal prosecutors and defense lawyers,” Schwartz writes.
In an Arkansas case, a juror sent Twitter messages to his friends that some might call indiscreet: ““So Johnathan, what did you do today? Oh nothing really, I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else’s money.” Although the juror insists he said nothing until the trial ended, stories like this are bound to suggest grounds for appeal for the losing side.
As is often the case, the comment thread on the Times story adds a lot of texture. Phil Greene from Houston writes: “As a lawyer who has won most of my cases over the last forty years I can tell you there is nothing magic about courtroom evidence, and the system is based on both sides twisting the truth to their advantage. Information gathered over the internet is much more reliable than the stilted garbage the poor jurors are forced to endure in our medieval court system. Listen to your iPhone, not the judge and the witnesses.” Yikes!
Those little devices we all carry have turned into so much more than just phones.
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
You must log in to post a comment.