“Guilty. Guilty. I say no. I will not be swayed. Practicing
for jury duty,” said a juror on his Internet post during the thick of a murder
trial. While the post caught public
attention from high profile news sources such as the Washington Post, this
juror’s internet statements are hardly the exception. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes reemphasized
the traditionally held practice in courts of law when saying, “The theory of
our system is that conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by
evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether
of private talk or public print.” And
yes, “outside influence….private talk or public print,” would include one’s Facebook
posts, twitter tweets, and research done on Yahoo. The question remains, if the courts take such
a staunch approach towards a jury’s implementation of the Sixth Amendment, in
respect to private research via mediums like the internet, how is it enforced?
A Law student from the University Of Illinois College Of Law
suggested that mere jury instructions, monitoring, and prohibitions on
electronic equipment are not enough, rather that jurors should be punished for
their hampering with the Sixth Amendment and doing any sort of private
research. While that may seem a harsh
thought and something to consider in the distant future, it is an all too real
reality for University lecturer Theodora Dallas, and past juror, who has been
sentenced 6 months in jail for doing personal research regarding a criminal
defendant. So maybe jurors being
informed of the legal ramifications and legal punishments if engaging in
internet research, while serving in a criminal jury, is not so distant a
future? Judge Shira Scheindlin of the
U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York has a much simpler proposal;
just have the jurors sign a pledge promising that they will not do independent
research on criminal cases. However,
perjury charges could be the end result for several jurors. Yet, it is likely that the mere threat of
perjury charges or any other sort of punishment would render the jurors much
more amiable to set aside those electronic devices and powerful 4G LTE signals.
To avoid trials like that of 2009 in Florida by U.S.
District Judge William J. Zloch, where nine out of twelve jurors had done
private internet research, something must be done. Do we trust the discernment of jurors enough
that they could be allowed full access to all the information possible through
the worldwide web? At least twenty
states explicitly mention juror use of the internet in jury instructions – but is
that enough? Does there need to be consequences for jury misconduct? Is sacrifice our First Amendment rights and
allowing juror’s online IDs and other identities be surveyed by the government
during criminal trials an option, where those found doing their own research
would be automatically disqualified for further time spent as a juror. With trials now live on the internet, it
seems counter-intuitive to prohibit jurors from accessing online materials.
Maybe banning the use of internet searching, something as
common as brushing one’s teeth (let’s hope that’s common) is too much to ask
and an unreasonable request. Either way
a consensus must be reached. As Attorney
John G. Browning says, “the online activities of jurors during trial threaten
the integrity of the proceedings. It is
a problem that is national in scope.” Time
for an answer that is national in reach.
Sources used in this post:
http://www.trialcounsel.org/082909/BROWNING.htm
I think jurors should already be informed of legal consequences for engaging in internet research. It seems like something easy to do that would help with the problem. I also find it strange that only twenty states mention juror use of the internet in their instructions. If it is such a big problem, why do they not do simple things to help fix it. I do not think that all internet use should be banned for jurors, but they should definitely be restricted so they do not learn anything about a case that they are not supposed to. If they have to sign a pledge and then face consequences if they break that pledge I think that is great. How to monitor it would be a problem though. Can it just be left to the honesty of the jurors? Then if they get punished they would not want to confess. If they accidentally learn something they should not know, and then report it, should they be punished for that? How would a judge determine if the juror found it accidentally or not? I think that is something is to be done, guidelines should be created so jurors know what they can and cannot do and what the consequences are.
ReplyDeleteI think it is clear that jurors using the internet/social media improperly doesn't make for a fair trial. Having a rule without a punishment is rather pointless. There needs to be some consequences for actions that deprive another of their right to a fair trial. I think that during the trial and deliberations a person shouldn't be permitted to use the internet. Who knows what they will come across that may influence their decision, or what they might do with social media; however, I think when it comes to their "off duty" time it is unreasonable to prohibit internet use. I think it also depends on the context. For example, there are certain cases that are very public (which means it would be hard to avoid coming across info on the internet), those cases I think it may be necessary to sequester the jury and prohibit contact of any kind with the internet. Aside from that, I don't think monitoring their internet usage is a feasible option. It would take too much tax dollars to pay people to monitor them, not to mention that jurors deserve to search the internet on their personal time without being monitored. Jurors shouldn't be punished unless they have actually been clearly informed of the rules. Then, if they knowingly and intentionally break the rules a punishment should be imposed. I think jail time is a fairly reasonable punishment for that type of behavior. I also think there should be some community service added to that. It is true that they may accidentally come across something in their personal time, but I don't think it is too likely to accidentally come across information on a low-profile case. Perhaps the degree to which jurors are limited in their internet use should correspond to the likelihood of something being accidentally discovered. What about those who intentionally search for information online? Frankly, I don't think it is reasonable to set up a monitoring system. It is always possible to come across related material even without the internet. If we can depend on the honor system for non-internet material, then perhaps it should be the same when it comes to people using the internet during their personal time.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree, while there may be large amounts of information that could benefit the jurors in making a more fact-based, objective decision, the converse is also true, that the internet is a source for very biased material, that absorbed by the Jury may have negative consequences. Yes, the internet has become second-nature to people in their day-to-day lives, but the constitution, and more specifically the sixth amendment, allows for the right to a fair trial, which could be severely compromised in the case of biased outside research. Since this is a constitutional issue, I also believe that punishments and consequences need to be severe for those people who compromise the fairness of a trial. I'm still not sure whether I am in support or not of the government monitoring the online activity of the jury in these situations. I believe that we should have the freedom to freely access all publishings on the internet, but I do think that, like now, there should still be punishments for those who taint trials.
DeleteI think most people agree that juror use of social media during a trail should be prohibited. It is how to punish a juror that does research or monitor there access to the internet. There is no way to know if a juror has not done internet research unless you sequester them. Sequestering juries for every single criminal trial is expensive and out of the question so what comes next? I think that having jurors sign a pledge saying they will not do internet research on the case would be beneficial. If the jurors know that the consequence of breaking that pledge could be jail time, they are more likely to not do research in fear of the consequences. Though, as mentioned in the post, jurors won't feel comfortable coming to the judge and letting him or her know if they can across evidence by accident. This could deter jurors from coming forward, which would also taint the trial. This is a very difficult topic to figure out a concrete rule and punishment for because you could always find a loophole or problem with something in it. It is unreasonable to monitor every jurors access to the internet, so the rule/pledge would almost be completely based on the honor system. The big thing that needs to happen in the near future is that every state inform jurors that internet research should not be done and they will be punished if they do internet research.
ReplyDeleteI think that the use of a combination of both established punishments and a signed pledge stating that a juror will not engage in research (be it online or not)regarding his/her trial is the most plausible means of controlling outside trial research by jurors. It is impossible to ever fully monitor outside juror research, as it may be carried out utilizing online ID's and IP addresses other than juror's own. Thus, given the potential ineffectiveness of the process, it seems that the cost incurred by monitoring juror internet use proves largely futile and unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I think that punishments akin to perjury for violating agreements not to conduct outside reseaarch are justified; however, I do think that jurors should be able to avoid such punishments if they report their exposure to any outside information regarding the case to the judge in a timely manner. Such options should be made known to jurors at the beginning of a trial in order to diminish juror apprehensions regarding the possibility of punishment when coming forward.
Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that it will ever be possible to fully monitor jury behaviors and actions without sequestration. However, given the costliness of sequestering a jury, it seems like the next best option in ensuring a fair trial is to rely on the honor code, require the signing of pledges not to conduct outside research, and in cases in which such pledges are broken, subject violations of such pledges to adequate punishment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJurors should be held accountable for social media usage when it compromises fair trial. I agree with Carina about how a simple thing such as informing the jury about internet usage rules can make a big difference. If jurors are abusing internet/social media during trail it seems to me like it would make sense to inform the jury before hand of the consequences they can expect if they break the rules. Like others have already brought up it doesn't seem very plausible to track each persons IP address to see what they've been looking at or to sequester the jury, but at the end of the day jury member are getting caught for wrongfully using the internet during trail and that should be enough for some standards to be put in place. Although not everyone who abuses the internet/social media during a trail gets caught, legitimate consequences for breaking the rules may deter some from abusing the system.
ReplyDeleteI think a signed pledge would be helpful in this case. Being told that outside research, whether on the internet or otherwise, is prohibited, and then signing a pledge stating that you will not do it is a pretty powerful combination in my opinion. Then any research done on the part of the juror would be done knowing full well that they are breaking the rules, and will face consequences if they get caught. The question of punishment is an interesting one though. I definitely believe there should be a fine involved, as money is a great motivator. I'm not sure what other consequences would be fitting.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely. Most citizens I believe actually would take it seriously if they had to sign a document stating the rules and punishments. The conscious decision to sign a document certainly makes me think about consequences. The issue for me is trying to figure out a "fair" way to decide the amount of the fine. Does it matter what type of trial it was? How long was the trial? How much money did it cost? Other consequences may also be factored in. I feel that the subject of the fine is the most difficult part of this debate.
DeleteAs nice as it would be to find a practical way to completely prevent jurors from using outside research in a trial, I do not think one exists. I agree that requiring jurors to sign a paper pledging not to participate in any outside research on the internet (or any other medium) is a good method to make sure that jurors are informed and aware of the consequences that come with such behavior. I also think that legal punishments such as jail time would be necessary to deter people from doing this. In cases where people accidentally come across information, I do not think there needs to be any fear of punishment for reprting this to the judge (even if they couldn't resist and intentionally did the research, encouraging timely report of the information found without punishment would greatly help prevent unfair trials and mistrials). I think that the honor code method of handling this issue for the majority of lower profile cases ( in combination with informing and adequate repercussions) is the best solution. It would, of course, still allow for some incidents to slip by unnoticed, but the alternatives of government government surveillance, complete interent bans, or sequester of the jury are either too invasive or too impractical.
ReplyDeleteI think we can all agree that the common juror would have trouble separating fact from fiction when it comes to news about the case they are a part of. Just because something makes a good story doesn't mean it's true. Social media is a special inlet for this information, since when your friends share, for example, an article about a case with you, chances are you'll find it more believable since someone you know agrees with it. When this happens, it's almost as if the juror's friends are making the decision for them by sheer influence. Even outside of social media lots of information, without additional digging, can sound credible, while it turns out to just be a bunch of malarkey.
ReplyDeleteThere is one argument that comes to mind against the influence of doing individual research, however. Chances are, when jurors start doing their own research, they have a fairly strong idea of which way they are going to vote. So, when they look up information, they'll probably selectively search for articles that support their opinions and strengthen their resolve. What I'm trying to say is that internet research might not change their decision at all!
As for actually preventing internet research, I agree with the many above who say punishments and education on what can and can't be done must be in place. I don't, however, agree with jail time, as I feel this is not the correct form of punishment (I prefer fines). I also agree with Jamila's point about quick reporting prompting less severe punishment and easier judgement on whether or not it's enough to replace the juror. Just trusting jurors won't be enough to stop internet research, but I don't agree with any invasions of privacy such as monitoring of private Facebook messages. I've also been thinking about how easy it would be to make internet filtering programs for each case to be put on the jurors' computers to help them avoid webpages that contain information about the case (by checking pages that they are about to visit for keywords, such as the names of those involved in the trial, and giving a warning message or blocking those pages entirely). This check would probably take under a second with a well designed program, and would be easy to tailor to each case.
So, my opinion stands as follows. Help the juror avoid breaking the law, and use things such as the internet filter to identify excessive access to information about the case online.
Ever get that deja vu feeling? haven't we already talked about this? No offence Jake but my opinion has not changed all that much the other times we have talked about this. It's a balancing act between the rights of the plaintiff/defendant and the rights of the jury members, and not wasting the governments money with unnecessary precautions.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has the right to a fair and public trial with an impartial jury and that is all good and well but the jury in question is made up of jurors who are people who also have rights and plans for the weekend that don't include being locked in a room cut off from the world not to mention the chunk of change that would take.
the way I see it, the plaintiff/defendant stand to lose the most in comparison to some ruined weekend plans, not to mention the money saved on insuring the impartiality of a jury when faced with the catastrophic fee of a retrial.
But you all already know what i think.
To maintain a system of fair trial, internet research must not be allowed. People are quick to punish people on suspicion of a crime. We shouldn't let it be even easier for people on trial to be further demonized. Internet research hasn't been showed to help at all. It has only been detrimental to some court cases.
ReplyDeleteI believe that internet research on a case should be prohibited and that there should be consequences for doing so. Impartial jurors can cost courts serious amounts of time and money in mistrials, and even worse, obstruct the rights of each individual to a fair trial; punishment is the ony way to discourage this activity. I believe there should be some minor fine involved for those who have intentionally broken pledges to refrain from internet research. Without any accountability for jurors, mistrials will increase as the internet continues to become a greater influence in our daily lives.
ReplyDelete