Courts finally catching up to texting jurors

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Courts finally catching up to texting jurors
By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer Paul Elias, Associated Press Writer – Sat Mar 6, 11:29 am ET

SAN FRANCISCO – Enough with the tweets, the blogs, the Internet searches.

That's the message being communicated by courts across the country as jurors using their portable electronic devices continue to cause mistrials, overturned convictions and chaotic delays in court proceedings.

Last year a San Francisco Superior Court judge dismissed 600 potential jurors after several acknowledged going online to research the criminal case before them.

Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon challenged her misdemeanor embezzlement conviction after discovering five jurors "friended" one another on Facebook during the trial.

And a federal judge in Florida declared a mistrial after eight jurors admitted Web surfing about a drug case.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100306/ap_on_re_us/us_texting_jurors

[MineralMan]

1. Confiscate them at the beginning of the trial, then return them at

end of the day or at the end of the trial if the jury is sequestered. It's that simple.

[lsewpershad]

2. Agreed +1

[qanda]

3. That doesn't do anything to prevent people from finding out information on their own time

I'm not sure how this can be eliminated, unless every jury is sequestered and cut off from all technology.

[alarimer]

23. If that happened, no one would ever show up for jury duty.

I know I'd lie to get out of jury duty every single time if they started sequestering everybody or confiscating their phones (what if there's a family emergency?).

[kath]

25. If there's a family emergency, they could do what was done for friggin' DECADES - call the court

house, say that "we have an emergency and I need to reach Jane Doe, who is serving jury duty" - they then could find Jane Doe, and pass the info on to her, if it truly was an emergency.


Yes, people somehow managed to survive without being tethered to cell phones 24/7. Amazing, but true.

[Darth_Kitten]

34. Right on!

:D

[CLANG]

10. How does that prevent them from "tweeting" at night?

Unless they are also sequestered, the problem isn't solved.

[blondeatlast]

13. Yup. nt

[AngryAmish]

28. Old saying: For every problem there is a solution that is simple, easy and wrong

We have enough of a problem keeping jurors happy. The pay sucks, you have to sit with 11 people you would prefer not to be with and the boredom can be unendurable. Many people get very twitchy if they are away from their blackberries, iphones, etc. We ask these people to sit for weeks on end while their businesses and jobs go in the crapper. If we don't allow them their devices we end up with nothing but old people.

The way it is being handled around here is the judge sits down with the panel and explains to them that they can't use the devices while in the box - easy. Then they also explain that while it seems to make no sense the google and stuff not to look things up, it is the system and they took an oath to uphold it. Also, with social networking, that they took an oath not to talk to anyone while the case is on. This applies to the internet also. And also explain that everything they do online is traceable to them. Explain that if something is not allowed in real life it is not allowed on the internet.

People can live with that. They can check work emails and answer during all the down time. They can call back a sick relative.

Just taking them away all day is not a realistic solution.

[salguine]

4. If you start giving people some time in jail for this shit, I bet the message'll sink in.

[saigon68]

5. The there is this GEM

Not fired up over jury duty

[LuckyLib]

9. Sentence him to count the wrinkles on his dog's balls.

[8 track mind]

14. well i'd like to know how that turned out.......n/t

[TexasObserver]

19. I'm sure that worked out well for Mr. Slye.

I imagine a uniform showed up to take him into custody. Then he got to stand in front of the judge and explain himself. If he's really, really lucky, he didn't get any jail time for contempt.

The judge probably explained to him that a summons is not an invitation to a party, but an order from the court.

The one thing I really like about court is how quickly ass hats like Mr. Slye find out this is not their venue to control.

[Xipe Totec]

6. Trial by Google nt

[customerserviceguy]

7. Just like with driving

texting is screwing up the world. Eliminate it at the source (the wireless telcos) now, before it gets more people killed or thrown in prison.

[lunatica]

8. Another interesting unintended consequence of the internet age

Another one is the use of the internet to plagiarize papers in college. It gave birth to plagiarism finding software. Professors have to use it all the time.

Humans are insatiable in finding ways around things. We're a pretty creative species.

I am not condoning, just making an observation.

[Lionel Mandrake]

11. Why shouldn't jurors look for information

other than what the Court in its infinite wisdom decides to spoon-feed them?

And why waste time with peremptory challenges? They serve no useful purpose.

And why should anyone work for essentially nothing? Jury servitude is a real hardship for many people. Others are merely pissed off, and rightly so.

[Heidi]

15. I hope that post was sarcasm.

Why shouldn't jurors look for information other than what the Court in its infinite wisdom decides to spoon-feed them?
The confrontation clause of Sixth Amendment is one reason jurors should not be allowed to look for information about a defendant. Smart phones provide entry to a whole world of information, which may or may not be true. How would a defendant go about confronting bloggers providing information to jurors, for example?

And why waste time with peremptory challenges? They serve no useful purpose.
You mean besides the useful purpose of allowing both the defendant and the prosecution to get rid of potentially biased jurors?

[Lionel Mandrake]

30. Not sarcasm at all.

Following your example, I will use boldface type to quote parts of your post.

How would a defendant go about confronting bloggers providing information to jurors, for example?
Maybe jurors should be trusted to know that blogs are not evidence. Alternatively, maybe judges in a non-jury trial should have the same blinders on that jurors have.

I see why you think that jurors should not try to discover facts not in evidence, but what about the law? Why shouldn't a juror with time on his hands visit the law library? (A judge once told me not to do that.}


Last time I was on jury servitude, after a judge gave a pep talk in the jury assembly room, I asked him what he thought about peremptory challenges. His Honor allowed as how he had opinions on the matter but declined to share those opinions with us at that time. I mentioned that peremptory challenges had been abolished in England, and he found that very interesting.

Evidently a majority of MPs didn't agree with you that peremptory challenges serve the useful purpose of allowing both the defendant and the prosecution to get rid of potentially biased jurors.

According to http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:4FT29S53kuUJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge+uk+%22peremptory+challenge%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Peremptory challenges were first used in England not many years after the assizes of Clarendon of 1166 allowed jury trials. When the concept was first introduced into the jury system, the maximum number of peremptory challenges allowed was thirty-five. As time went on, this number reduced, and by the year 1509 the maximum number of peremptory challenges was twenty. By 1977, the number of peremptory challenges granted to each side was reduced from seven to three. The right of peremptory challenge was abolished altogether by the Criminal Justice Act 1988 ... which saw it as an erosion of the principle of random selection, and felt that its removal would “increase the fairness of the jury system”.

[TexasObserver]

38. Unfortunately, it wasn't.

It's always amazing the number of people who don't appreciate that a criminal case isn't their personal opportunity to apply whatever concept of justice they find appropriate. They're to answer questions truthfully. Anyone who won't do that isn't allowed to sit on a jury, and if found to have lied to get on a jury, can be held in contempt.

[TexasObserver]

17. Do you even understand the concept of admissible evidence?

Do you think your knowledge about matters of law are equal to the judge's? And if so, why would you think that?

Peremptory challenges are to allow each side to get rid of jurors they think might be a problem for one reason or another. Sometimes prospective jurors lie when they're in the jury panel, and don't reveal their prejudices. If they reveal their prejudices, they are removed for cause.

Peremptory challenges are necessary because some prospective jurors are lying schemers who think they know better than the laws passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, and carried out by a judicial system.

As for the remuneration for jury duty, you'll have to discuss that with your local judge. The next time you're called for jury duty, tell the judge that your time is worth more than he's paying you, and unless he can come up with the money, you don't intend to sit there all day. Give that a try, and you'll probably learn something from the experience.

[Lionel Mandrake]

31. Yes.

See post number 30 concerning admissible evidence and peremptory challenges.

Do I think my knowledge about matters of law is (not are) equal to the judge's? No.

As for the remuneration for jury duty (contrary to your sarcastic comment) it would be pointless to discuss that with the judge. The judge does not decide how much a particular juror gets paid.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TexasObserver]

37. Voir dire weeds out most who refuse to follow the judge's instructions.

Prospective jurors should answer the voir dire questions truthfully called for jury duty, so the judge and the attorneys can do their jobs properly.

That's what VOIR DIRE means - to tell the truth.

[Lionel Mandrake]

39. What do you mean by "the judge's instructions"?

If you mean the instructions the judge gives to prospective jurors during voir dire, then any juror who refused those instructions would be weeded out (and probably cited for contempt).

If you mean the instructions the judge gives to the jury just before deliberation, then nobody on the jury was weeded out during voir dire.

I'm trying to make sense of your statement, not trying to start an argument.

[TexasObserver]

40. The judge gives prospective jurors instructions about their duty to answer truthfully.

The judge gives the prospective jurors a spiel, based upon the jurisdiction and that jurisdiction's rules. At some point, the judge tells the jury panel he and/or the attorneys will ask questions and it is imperative that jurors answer truthfully. They'll be told "if it's personal, you can ask to come up here to the bench to talk about something." That's so the entire jury panel doesn't get contaminated when someone says "I know this doctor, and he cheats on his wife with other men," or some such outrageous statement.

The judge expects the prospective jurors to tell the truth in response to questions either the court or the attorneys pose to the jurors. Sometimes they are required to fill out a form with questions which the attorneys and the judge have already agreed upon using. The questions are to help the judge and the attorneys weed out any juror who shouldn't be used.

If a juror in a case charging a doctor with negligent homicide failed to disclose his own ongoing medical malpractice case against a different doctor, the presence of that juror on the jury chosen to hear the case would likely result in a re-trial of the matter.

At any time in the proceeding that an attorney learns a juror has lied, he can take action upon learning. Suppose the juror with the med mal case is seated on the jury and starts to hear the case. Two days into the trial, the defendant's attorneys find the med mal case while researching the jurors. They make it known to the judge and opposing counsel while the jury is out of the room. The judge has the bailiff go get the misbehaving juror. The juror is questioned by the judge, and then the judge finds out the juror didn't speak up when asked in the jury panel "has anyone here ever had a malpractice case against a doctor?"

The juror is discharged, and the next alternate juror steps in. The other jurors only know that the juror was replaced. The discharged juror is warned to keep their mouth shut, and if the judge is really ticked, maybe gets to spend the night in jail for contempt.

The judge might call in the other jurors, one at a time, to determine if the discharged juror had said anything to any of them about doctors or malpractice. If the discharged juror contaminated enough of the jury by making negative comments about doctors, a mistrial would be likely and a new jury required.

[Lionel Mandrake]

41. Okay, your main point in post #37

was that voir dire weeds out most prospective jurors who shouldn't be on the jury. It does that because the majority of prospective jurors answer the questions truthfully.

By the way, fewer prospective jurors in LA try to get ON a jury than try like hell to get OFF the jury, especially in cases that are expected to last several weeks.

[starroute]

12. Trial by jury is completely upside down from what it once was

The whole idea of being tried by a jury of your peers was that they would know you, know the other people involved, have some familiarity with the facts of the case, and be able to assess who was lying and who was telling the truth, who was likely to be at fault and who wasn't.

Somewhere along the line, that got turned into the idea of having a jury that knew nothing about the case, the defendants, or even the law -- as though total ignorance meant total objectivity. And now that they can't keep a lid on information any more, they're freaking out.

I say the more information everyone has the better -- and if that means the lawyers can't play their games of let's pretend any more, so much the worse for them.

[TexasObserver]

18. Please be honest enough to reveal your prejudices when called for jury duty.

Your prejudices disqualify you from serving on a jury.

Lawyers in court aren't playing games, as you claim. There's a reason we require people to go to law school, to pass the bar exam, to engage in continuing legal education, and to have an understanding of law.

If you can't understand why we don't allow everyone to bring their prejudices into the jury, at least make sure you never sit on a jury. If you'll be honest about your biases when you're on a jury panel, you won't sit on a jury, and that will be best for all involved. Jurors who don't understand the concept are a disaster, and cause untold errors in the process.

[Heidi]

20. "The lawyers can't play their games of 'let's pretent' anymore..."

Which lawyers do you mean? All lawyers? It seems everyone loathes lawyers until they need one, and then only until lawyer bills for tryin' to unsnarl whatever mess the client has found him/herself in.

There are plenty of lawyers worthy of admiration, by the way.
Belva Lockwood <-- woman's rights advocate
Clarence Darrow <-- on the righteous side of justice in Tennessee v. Scopes and the Sweet Trials.
David Boies <-- currently representing the forces of progress and reason versus the Proposition 8.
Barry Scheck <-- Co-founder of The Innocence Project
Thurgood Marshall <-- Remember Brown v. Board of Education?
Barbara Jordan <-- First black female congresswoman from the deep south

[Odin2005]

26. Prosecutors and defense attorneys like jurors that are easily manipulated idiots.

Intelligent people with some legal knowledge (like on Jury Nullification) are kicked out.

[Lionel Mandrake]

42. Defense attorneys with guilty clients want stupid juries.

That's axiomatic. Some even brag about it.

I once saw people handing out leaflets about jury nullification outside a courthouse. The judges were not amused, but I was.

[TexasObserver]

16. Some jurors NEVER listen to the court's instructions.

It's in one ear and out the other.

Oh, no, they know better. They don't understand the concept of having only admissible evidence determine the case. They want to know every supposition anyone anywhere might have made.

Morons on juries cause more trouble than you can imagine. Mistrials, mainly. They lie about not having convictions. They lie about not knowing about the case. More and more there are jurors who want to get on a jury because they already know how they want to vote. I've seen them argue here, at DU.

Anyone who can't or won't follow the judge's instructions should never be on a jury. There's a whole sub culture of idiots who think anything they find on the internet is superior information to what a real witness with actual knowledge can tell them.

[MineralMan]

21. I was the foreperson on the jury in a very interesting case,

involving commitment to a mental health facility AFTER the person had served his entire sentence for an assault charge. It was a test of a new law in California that allowed such commitments if the person was "deemed to be" a danger to society.

The defense in the case made a very good case that the person in question was not a danger to society. The original assault case was suspicious in its nature in the first place, and the person had been a model inmate, except for a single incident in his several years in prison.

The prosecution did a lousy job of presenting evidence that the man should be further incarcerated.

The judge gave a very good set of instructions, listing three conditions, all of which must be met if the man was to be subject to this indefinite commitment.

So, the jury went into deliberations. The discussion went around the table. Half of the jurors were quite certain that the three conditions were not all met. One, perhaps, was, but the judge stated that all three must be met. The other half of the jury was just as certain that this man should never walk the street again.

As the foreperson, I went through the judge's instructions several times with the jury. Finally, after about 6 times of explaining that all three conditions must be met, we got 10 of the jurors to agree that he should not be further incarcerated. Two were holdouts. This went on for two days.

Finally, one of them said, "I think all of "those people" should get life sentences." The other holdout said, "Yes!" The truth was finally out. The man was black, of course, and the community and the entire jury was white. The original crime had happened in another place, where more diversity existed.

At that point, I sent a communication to the judge, stating that the jury was deadlocked, and describing the statements of the two jurors. We got called out into the courtroom, and were individually questioned by the judge. The two jurors repeated their prejudicial statements to the judge, who declared a mistrial and admonished the two jurors.

Later, when the case was retried, the man ended up being released.

The instructions were clear. They were not met. Yet, two people of the twelve refused to release this man...because he was black. Feh!

[Heidi]

22. Good for you, MineralMan.

:thumbsup:

[TexasObserver]

24. Thanks for that sound testimonial.

It's hard for some people to see how those two jurors wasted the time, effort and expense to everyone involved for the whole time that case consumed the jury, the judge, the court staff, the prosecutors, the defendant, and his attorney. All wasted. Tens of thousands of dollars of time and effort flushed because two jerks lied during voir dire to get on a jury.

VOIR DIRE means to speak the truth. It is the duty of each prospective juror to speak the truth. If one cannot enter the jury box with an open mind, one must reveal that bias to the judge.

"Is there anyone here who thinks they cannot presume Mr. Defendant is innocent until his guilt is proved according to law, beyond a reasonable doubt?"

They all get asked that question and many others. But there are groups who advise citizens to hold their tongue in voir dire, to get onto juries, to vote their will, not to follow their instructions.

[MineralMan]

29. This situation is why nobody here should try to avoid jury duty.

Jury duty is an awesome responsibility. On every jury there should be at least one person who is rational, ethical, and willing to take on those who aren't. It is a responsibility that all of us should welcome. Far too often, the most intelligent, well-educated, and thoughtful people do everything they can to avoid jury duty.

It is wrong to avoid jury duty for any reason than necessity. Go. Answer the questions truthfully, and serve if you are selected. Try to become the foreperson, if the foreperson is chosen by the jury members. All you have to do is volunteer in most cases, since nobody else will want the extra responsibility.

Listen carefully to the evidence and listen carefully to the judge's instructions, then use those things and your own ethical values to help you. It can make a huge difference.

[Odin2005]

27. +1

:yourock:

[activa8tr]

32. That's quite a good report. I bet that happens a lot with juries. Somehow it's

hard to screen out the bigots, who will never listen and pay attention, never bother to follow instructions, and really don't care.

What a colossal waste of time to have to sit through all that kind of trial, only to find out in the end that your were serving with idiots.

[MineralMan]

33. Not a waste of time at all. Because I was there, a mistrial was

declared and the guy ended up going free. Someone needs to be on scene to counter the idiots.

[activa8tr]

35. Agreed, and just because YOU were there!!! Well done! n/t