Jurors Turn to Web and Cause a Mistrial
We have become information junkies - with a vast world of knowledge accessible in seconds by a tap of your finger on your computer, BlackBerry or iPhone. Most would agree that this is a good thing - a great thing - most of the time. But how about in the courtroom - during a trial? What is fascinating about this scenario is the convergence of two very distinct ideals - judicial procedure and tradition on the one hand, with the emerging benefits of readily available (and accessible) technology on the other.
Last month, a juror in a federal drug trial in Florida admitted to the judge that he was conducting his own research on the internet. This was in direct contravention of the judge's orders and (as lawyers are aware) centuries of legal rules relating to evidence. A lack of bias and impartiality towards the defendant, and the issues raised during a trial, is a cornerstone of our judicial process. However, when the judge questioned the other jurors he got an even bigger shock - eight other jurors had been doing the same thing. "We were stunned" said defense lawyer Peter Raben. "It's the first time modern technology struck us in that fashion, and it hit us right over the head". The judge declared a mistrial, abruptly ending eight weeks of work by prosecutors and defense lawyers.
The New York Times has reported this story, and quoted at least two other cases where the unauthorized use of technology such as iPhones and BlackBerry's have resulted in mistrials. One judgment was overturned because a juror had used Twitter to send updates during the trial, and in another a juror had posted updates on Twitter and his Facebook account, telling his readers that a "big announcement" was forthcoming.
Jurors are not supposed to obtain information from outside of the courtroom. There are complex rules of evidence and laws of admissibility restricting the use of such information to ensure a fair and impartial judicial process. However, jurors can now surf the web from their iPhone during a bathroom break and discover details about a case, a defendants history or criminal record, or information relating to a medical condition or a map of a crime scene (think Google maps). And, unless the juror is sequestered (which is not always the case), jurors could still surf the web at home to find out information pertaining to the case.
The answers on how to deal with this conundrum are far from easy - but, as the Connecticut Law Tribune quoted from a source, "How can you learn more about this issue?" - well, "Google it on your iPhone of course".
Sarah Hyndman Fitzpatrick
