“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
