Today's NYTimes has a fascinating article about how the unauthorized use of technology during trials is affecting outcomes:
Jurors are not supposed to seek information outside of the courtroom. They are required to reach a verdict based on only the facts the judge has decided are admissible, and they are not supposed to see evidence that has been excluded as prejudicial. But now, using their cellphones, they can look up the name of a defendant on the Web or examine an intersection using Google Maps, violating the legal system’s complex rules of evidence. They can also tell their friends what is happening in the jury room, though they are supposed to keep their opinions and deliberations secret.
Although this news is disturbing, it really isn't at all surprising. Considering how hard it is to keep students off the internet during class (something they are paying $$$ to attend), I can see how the average juror would not understand the complex and sometimes arcane rules of evidence that regulate trials, and see nothing wrong with jumping on the internet to clarify facts, do extra research, explore alternate theories, or simply twitter with their friends and family about what's going on during the trial.
Truly, it's the wikipedia age--many people (especially the younger generations) don't see why they need rely on experts and rules (such as courts and lawyers) to find out the information they want at the moment they want it. I wonder if the only solution to this problem is confiscating blackberries and i-phones from jurors during the actual court dates, and then making jurors sign an oath that they will not do their own internet research during the course of the trial. After all, you're not allowed to go visit the site of a crime scene if you are a member of a jury in a criminal trial; clearly we need to expand this rule to internet use.
Comments