Filed under: Odds and ends, iPhone
Jurors addicted to iPhones and Google causing mistrials
I admit it. I check Google out all the time when I need some information. It's a good habit, and I feel better informed. If you are a juror, however, you can be a wee bit too informed. The New York Times is reporting jurors with web enabled cell phones are doing their own research, Googling lawyers names, more information on defendants and even research into claims made by witnesses. Recently in a Florida case, such misbehavior resulted in a costly mistrial after 8 weeks of work by prosecutors and defense attorneys.
In an Arkansas case, a juror used Twitter to send updates to friends during a civil trial.Jurors are instructed to not do any outside research or communications, but some find the temptation just too great.
In some states, cellphones are not allowed in the courtrooms, but are allowed in the jury rooms. Most of these rules were designed to keep distracting noises out of the courtroom, and later the rules were trying to deter cameras built into phones. Many judges didn't give a thought about jurors using their phones to do research until recently, but our do-it-all phones are likely going to force a complete rewriting of the rules. How can you learn more about this issue? Google it on your iPhone, of course.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Techtistic said 3:22PM on 3-18-2009
I think that mostly everything as we know it will be reformed due to this increasing ability to access information anywhere, anytime. It's amazing and scary all at the same time.
Reply
(01) said 6:28PM on 3-18-2009
I totally agree. The really scary part about it is that your average person takes what they read online as fact; the same way people believe everything they see on TV. It's also a tough issue because I agree that jurors shouldn't be looking up information or talking to outside parties about the details of the trial until it's over, but on the other hand, I don't think taking people's cell phones away or blocking reception is the answer either. Like many thingss, the law has yet to catch up with the quick adoption of technology into our everyday lives.
pListOFF said 7:14PM on 3-18-2009
What kind of idiot would tweet about a trial he's a juror on? Or use their mobile to do "research"? Did know one let them know what "sequestered" means?!?
It's amazing - with all this information at our fingertips (literally) it seems to be creating more idiots than educating people.
Reply
milkmage said 11:36AM on 3-19-2009
you realize that being sequestered is pretty rare, right? most jurors are instructed to not discuss the trial with anyone, but they are allowed to go home. if you're sequestered, you are not allowed to go home until the trial is over, and you're cut off from the rest of the world. you stay in hotels, and the court does not let you have access to newspapers or any other media (TV included) where you might hear something about the trial. the OJ Simpson jury was sequestered. it was a huge, lengthy trial, with national coverage. you're not going to be sequestered during the trial for the guy selling dope on a corner.
@balkce - if you are a juror, you are only allowed to base your judgement on the evidence presented at trial. nothing else. period. that's why you shouldn't talk to anyone, read the papers or look anything up on the web. too risky? what if your're on trial for a violent crime and happen to play video games. you want your jury to base their verdict on the facts presented at trial, or do you want to get convicted because your jurors went home and read everything Jack Thomspon ever wrote?
@corbin. state law is irrelevant. when you are a juror the JUDGE is the law. when you are instructed by the JUDGE to do something, you must comply or run the risk of mistrial, or being slapped with a contempt charge. citizens are allowed to go home at night unless you're taken into custody AND arrested.. OR the court says you're sequestered. you haven't been arrested, but you still can't go home.
wh0c4rez said 4:26PM on 3-18-2009
~
Reply
jonathan ober said 4:47PM on 3-18-2009
ill agree that it can be a scary thing. google yourself and you will see listings for a lot of the traffic you do on tuaw even...i google phone numbers a lot of times since ive been getting spam at my home phone. its incredible the amount of information that is out there. im glad the only time i have ever been asked to be a part of a jury i was in college and couldnt get out of midterm week because of my civic duty.
Reply
grifmusic said 4:46PM on 3-18-2009
this nearly happened at my sister's trial - her husband poisoned her with antifreeze!
one of the jury was talking to their relatives at night. then their relative admitted they knew someone on the jury to online forums. the lawyers researched it thoroughly and called in witnesses, but no details of the case were supposedly disclosed.
thank goodness that some nitwit didn't ruin a 2-month murder trial!
my sister's husband was convicted and is currently sitting in jail - hopefully for life!
Reply
Toolman said 4:54PM on 3-18-2009
This article wasn't as much about Iphone's causing mistrials as much as technology and cell phones in general. Making this another bad post by TUAW overreaching and overreacting to anything apple.
Get some real news or stop posting.
Reply
Chuck said 5:36PM on 3-18-2009
I had jury duty in Manhattan last November, and all of the jurors had to give up phones and laptops when in the jury room (where the 12 jurors and 2 alternates sit together once selected for a trial), no exceptions. Outside of that room, we were free to do whatever we wanted with our phones and latops, surf or whatever, as there's free wi-fi in the building, plus a few free stations in the larger waiting room, where everyone reports on their first day.
If you live in Manhattan and have to serve, you'll be pleasantly surprised how efficient they've become downtown on Centre Street.
Reply
Noddy said 6:05PM on 3-18-2009
Who cares about mistrials and corrupt jurors? What about all the PUB QUIZ CHEATS, like me, using their iphone's to win drink vouchers and make teams of wise old men feel really stupid?
Broken Britain, that's what Apple are contributing to!
Reply
SIP said 9:45PM on 3-18-2009
I have been using the internet and email since it first became available to the general public, and I very quickly came to the conclusion that about 10% of the www contains useful information, the rest is either crap or bullshit.
TUAW is obviously in the useful 10%.
Reply
balkce said 9:55PM on 3-18-2009
I'm still actually confused about why is it wrong to research outside of the court rooms. I understand why telling other people that you are the juror of an specific trial is wrong (it would cause that other people to try and convince you, even by threatening you), but informing yourself about the things that are being said in there I find is empowering to me as a juror, leading to a better understanding of the case, and finding out what the lawyers are not telling me, if anything.
The law system relies only in the information given in the room and I feel that is too risky. Only two sides to the problem are given, and as what we've seen more and more, the things we do day to day play around in that grey area of morality. And also, as we've seen more and more, the things said in the courtroom are not completely true.
Yes, things are eventually going to be patched to consider the advances of technology, but I feel that should take advantage of it, rather than hindering its precious involvement. The law should be rewritten to let the jurors inform themselves the best they can. This would force the lawyer to give out straight, honest and detailed information in the trial, if not to risk a juror getting the right information elsewhere and using that to plea the other way.
Reply
John said 11:31PM on 3-18-2009
Are you kidding me? Imagine a juror finding a detailed analysis of the crime scene that turns out to be fictitious. How is a defense lawyer supposed to protect his/her client from flawed information that the jury has but no one else knows about?
balkce said 12:02AM on 3-19-2009
Well, what if the crime scene turn out to be the correct interpretation put out by an eye-witness that is too frightful to come out from anonymity? What if such an analysis was something that a crooked lawyer had hidden somewhere and didn't anybody else to find out? What if you found such an analysis, but knew that the defendant knew how to get to you if you were ever to reach the prosecuting lawyer or the police and provide this analysis? And, if the juror finds it, I would imagine that somebody else can find it too.
Stating probable situations of "imagine if the juror blah blah blah" starts a game of what-if-ing that doesn't end. So, no, sorry, not convinced.
Don't get me wrong, I'm actually looking to get set straight, but I just can't find a logical argument to support these rules.
AstroBoy said 10:34AM on 3-19-2009
How about the Bill of Rights?
If you allow for jurors to access anonymous and unsworn testimony against the defendant on the internet, you have violated the 6th Amendment rights of the defendant:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him..."
Also, in a trial, it is possible for a judge to specifically exclude certain pieces of evidence or testimony due to violations of the defendant's rights. For example, judeges may exclude evidence gathered as the result of an illegal search or a confession obtained as a result of coercion. If jurors access this information on the internet during deliberations and it influences their decision, the defendant's 4th and/or 5th Amendment rights may be violated.
Finally, restricting access to outside information can force the jurors think on their own, rather than letting outside opinion influence their decision. We want jurors to actually consider the evidence and make a decision, not just google for "What does Rush Limbaugh say I should think?"
steve said 9:43AM on 3-21-2009
balkce, your understanding of a fair trial is remarkable.
you have your entire life to learn things like logic and how to weigh one thing against another. nothing you pick up on a cellphone over an edge network will help with that.
as for the information pertinent to the case, we have a system of advocacy. two sides argue as well as they can, and in the end the jury issues a verdict based solely on what was presented there. that is the only way to establish the fairness of a trial.
Many jury members (such as yourself, it seems) are incapable of following a judge's instructions and weighing a trial in this manner -- they will inevitably make their decision based on a defendant's appearance, or his manner of addressing the court, or some indicator on him that sets the juror's mind off in one direction or another; this is shameful, but other than the ability to dismiss jurors who raise red flags before trial, we accept it as a flaw (of our citizenry, not our legal system) that can't be helped. All we can do is hope you are a rational citizen who can hear two arguments and decide between them, based solely on their merits.
corbin said 12:54AM on 3-19-2009
@pListOFF Lets not call people idiots without knowing a single detail of a story.
"In an Arkansas case, a juror used Twitter to send updates to friends during a civil trial. Jurors are instructed to not do any outside research or communications, but some find the temptation just too great."
It doesn't look like in this case that was true. However, in some it probably is and will be. A little bit too much condemnation without any analysis of the facts.
An interview with the juror: http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2009/03/13/an-interview-with-the-juror-who-tweets/
It doesn't seem like the juror did anything against state laws.
Reply
A Mac OCR developer said 7:43PM on 3-19-2009
Sadly, the Tweet Juror wasn't using an iPhone.
http://www.4029tv.com/video/18927485/index.html
Reply
bagslead said 5:25AM on 3-21-2009
how much of the iphone?
http://www.bagslead.com
Reply
balkce said 11:10AM on 3-21-2009
Thanks for the replies. Both of you have given valid points. Just to see if I got them right:
1.- The defendant has the right to know of the information used against him/her.
2.- The juror is restricted access to information that is not given in the court, to not let him/her wander off and get information, probably false or obtained illegally, that may be used to influence his/her decision.
I agree with the first, and thank you Astroboy for writing to me like I'm a grown-up. Yes, information of doubtful nature is out there and using it may be tricky, but can't the juror just show the newly found information to the lawyers in the case? I mean, the law already thinks it can restrict access, why not go the other way and demand that the jurors provide any new evidence they think is relevant? Who better than those 12 to have such information that will establish if a person is guilty or not? I would like to think that the jurors want to find the truth, and if they find some data that the lawyers didn't, wouldn't it in some cases be even helpful to the defendant? I'm giving the jurors too much credit, I know, but I like to think the best of people, instead of the worst. Which leads me to:
The second point. If a person hasn't had the possibility of thinking on their own because Bill O'Reilly has always told him/her what to think, what is it that is going to stop him/her to do so in a trial? Restricting access to information outside of the court won't change his/her predisposition of a verdict because of the way the defendant dressed. These types of jurors are going to find in the internet (using a cell phone or not) information that already support their pre-judgment. In the other hand, allowing access, I believe, will open the possibility for more information gathering than from just the two sides given in the courtroom. This, obviously, should be done by taking into account Astro's point and the Bill of Rights, but, still, I think it can be done in a sensible way.
The law right now is basing itself on the judgement of people; people that predispose, assume, and, yes, use information from the internet to decide. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of finding information that they think is reasonable, and be used to reach a better understanding of which verdict is given. These rules are set because they think the jurors are too easily influenced, because they are either stupid or too submissive. And the fact that the law is set in such a way to try and circumvent this notion leads me to believe that the legal system is flawed. It's like wanting to use cheese to nail two boards together, finding it isn't hard enough to be used for that, and then going through all types of troubles to make a hammer out of cheese... Limiting the access to technology is just a patch to a system that needs to rethink itself; to try something other than cheese. The fact that innocent people have been sentenced to death hints at the possibility that the way things are now is not the only way to establish the fairness of a trial, and that the law system in place can be better: why not start with the iPhone? =P
Reply