Jurors addicted to iPhones and Google causing mistrials

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.
http://www.online-flash-game.com/

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

how much of the iphone?


http://www.bagslead.com

Sadly, the Tweet Juror wasn't using an iPhone.

http://www.4029tv.com/video/18927485/index.html

@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.

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.

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%.

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!

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.

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.