Smart phones perpetually seem to beckon their owners to satisfy their curiosities with a quick web search or update 300 of their closest friends about their activities. For many, Facebooking or Googling from iPhones and Blackberries has become almost instinctual. But problems occur when the person responding to that urge to be connected 24/7 is sitting on a jury and instructed to avoid unwanted influence from the outside world.
One of the defining principles of the American jury system is that jurors are required to reach a verdict based solely on the facts the judge has decided are admissible, and they are not supposed to see evidence that has been excluded as prejudicial. Judges have long included specific instructions against conducting Internet searches on the case with their standard instructions to not seek outside information. Yet in more and more cases, jurors seem to be forgetting that instruction entirely and consulting their smart phone for case advice.
Earlier this month, a juror in a lare federal drug trial in Florida admitted to the judge after eight weeks of testimony that he had been researching the case on the Internet during breaks. The juror said he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong; he just wanted to have all his questions answered so he could make a good decision. The judge queried the rest of the jury and was shocked to find eight other jurors who had done the same thing. As a result, the judge had no choice but to declare a mistrial.
Judges and attorneys are also seeing problems with information flowing out of the courtroom through iPhones and Blackberries. Last week, defense attorneys in the federal corruption trial of a former Pennsylvania state senator demanded that the judge declare a mistrial because one juror posted updates on the case on Facebook and Twitter. The judge refused and the jury found the senator guilty, but his lawyers plan to use the Internet postings as grounds for appeal.
In a civil case against a company called Stoam Holdings, a juror sent Twitter messages during the trial to friends warning them not to purchase stock in the company the juror was deciding the fate of: “oh and nobody buy Stoam. It's bad mojo and they’ll probably cease to Exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter.”
The juror, Jonathon Powell, says he only sent the messages after the verdict was issued, but attorneys for the company are attempting to have the judgment overturned nonetheless.
There is no simple solution to the problem, short of sequestering all juries for cases big and small, which is unrealistic. Confiscating cell phones during deliberations would send the right message, but there are legitimate reasons a juror would want to use their phone during breaks and nothing would stop a rogue juror from slipping in a few Google searches between emails to the office or the babysitter. Better jury instructions, frequent reminders of those instructions and punishments for disobeying these laws would likely help eliminate this pesky information problem.
Related Stories:
Get our Newsletter!Click here to sign up and stay informed
