Why is 'juror research' such a bad thing?

[Gidney N Cloyd]

Why are facts (I know, I know... wikipedia... nevertheless)less important than a lawyer's courtroom skills?
And if 'juror nullification' is legal, why should juror research result in mistrials?

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/us/18juries.html?hp

As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials Are Popping Up

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.

A juror on a lunch or bathroom break can find out many details about a case. Wikipedia can help explain the technology underlying a patent claim or medical condition, Google Maps can show how long it might take to drive from Point A to Point B, and news sites can write about a criminal defendant, his lawyers or expert witnesses.

“It’s really impossible to control it,” said Douglas L. Keene, president of the American Society of Trial Consultants.

Judges have long amended their habitual warning about seeking outside information during trials to include Internet searches. But with the Internet now as close as a juror’s pocket, the risk has grown more immediate — and instinctual. Attorneys have begun to check the blogs and Web sites of prospective jurors.

Mr. Keene said jurors might think they were helping, not hurting, by digging deeper. “There are people who feel they can’t serve justice if they don’t find the answers to certain questions,” he said.

[msongs]

1. paying expert (or any) witnesses should be illegal also nt

[RedCappedBandit]

5. Why?

[SteppingRazor]

2. Yeah, but wikipedia is a slippery slope.

Suppose a juror turns to, oh, I dunno. Some other web site that posts news stories. ... Let's say, for example, Free Republic.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

4. Agreed but there are up to 11 other jurors to debate his sources and findings.

Much as they do now when they deliberate over what they heard from the lawyers in court.

[SteppingRazor]

7. And what if, by roll of the dice, all 12 are morons?

The point is that evidence that makes it into the courtroom has been found to be non-prejudicial. You can't say the same for what a juror finds on his/her own. And because of that, only evidence offered in the courtroom can be considered. If a fact is that important, and the lawyers know what they're doing, it'll make it into evidence anyway.

[Johonny]

10. Often times this isn't true even when they don't seek outside

information. People on the Jury can just make stuff up and then try to convince other people based on information not presented at the trial or anywhere. So I'm not sure how different Jury deliberation would be.

[sailor65]

3. Because the web is a ridiculously

easy place to skew information. You can't be assured the jurors will get information that's any good.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

6. You also can't be assured the trial lawyers will give them information that's any good.

[SteppingRazor]

8. You can be assured, though, that trial lawyers will give them evidence that a judge finds...

is non-prejudicial and relevant to the case.

Lawyers know the law. Judges even more so. The public, in general, does not. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have experts deciding on my fate than a bunch of goons googling for their facts.

[gratuitous]

9. Why juror research is bad

Because the decision in a case is supposed to be determined by the law, as presented by the judge (court), and the evidence, as presented by the parties. Jurors who don't understand something should ask the judge for a definition.

Would you be satisfied with a jury that was presented with all the evidence and testimony, that then retired to their deliberations only to have someone go to crackpot.com and come up with the "incontrovertible" "evidence" that no one could possibly sustain a back injury from a slip-and-fall? Evidence from outside sources can't be vetted, isn't subject to cross-examination, and can't be challenged for its validity. It amounts to a trial by ambush, as the parties can't possibly present every scrap of evidence to rebut or refute every hare-brained assertion on the internet.

[Cid_B]

11. Fruit of the poisoned tree...

Lets say that investigators obtained evidence, a bullet casing for example, but it was determined later to be inadmissible due to a bad warrant. I know about it, you know about it, the news agencies talking heads know about it but because it is inadmissible the jury cant see it as according to our legal system he is entitled to a "fair" trial.

What happens when the jurors determine guilt or innocence based on inadmissible evidence? This is tip of the iceberg but you get the idea.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Because jurors are not qualified to research, or know...

the law.

Our legal system is far from perfect, but adding jurors' researching on their own to it can't end well-- it will most likely add yet more confusion to an already confused and seemingly random system.

(Just look at any general discussion board, including this one, and see how well the research is done or how opinions are grounded in facts and reasoning.)

[gkhouston]

13. Looking up information on people or intersections? Don't know about you, but I've

seen some pretty bizarre and crappy driving directions from the various mapping software sites. I sure as hell wouldn't trust 'em in a court case. And what if you looked up somebody and it wasn't the right person? My name is not a common one, yet there are three or four of "me" floating around. I go to places like wikipedia for quick information, but if it really matters, I check the info. I've been a juror. It's bad enough getting people to distinguish between actual testimony and lawyer histrionics without having them throw in independent "research".

[Lyric]

14. Imagine if a juror without much tech savvy found information on FreeRepublic

Would any of us want the people charged with determining the guilt or innocence of a defendant to use information from a site like that?

That is exactly what those strict regulations are supposed to prevent.