I’m actually a little surprised, though I shouldn’t be, that the courts are failing to realize how much jurors rely on the Internet.
Judges always tell jurors not to do any research and not to talk to anyone about the case. Thankfully, most of them are happy to go along with the suggestion that they get specific about this and go beyond the boilerplate of jury pre-instructions. Most people don’t think of Google as “research” and don’t think of Twitter as “talking to anyone”. They have to be told: do not look up anything about this case, including the parties and the attorneys, on the Internet, and that includes Google and Wikipedia; do not blog about this trial, do not email people, do not Twitter or send text messages.
And you can see that they didn’t think of it that way, because the nods at “don’t do research” turn to surprise when the judge starts reeling off exactly what that means. I’ve actually seen one person kicked off a jury because he would not agree to refrain from looking things up on the Internet about the case. The judge’s explanation that all information had to come in during the trial did not sway him; he was annoyed that anyone might put a hold on his sacred right to Google for any reason.
If you hate the idea of jury service, imagine what it would be like to put in eight weeks of time, only to have it end in a mistrial because some bozo couldn’t find anything else to talk about on his Facebook page.
{ 4 } Comments
One of the hardest parts about the Ohio Campaign was our total media blackout. “Don’t talk to journalists. Don’t blog. Don’t talk to Bloggers. Don’t text bloggers”. Etc.
Didn’t keep one of our girls from sleeping with a documentarian– and giving him access to the whole damned campaign. But we held up amazingly well, and made sure that our shit stayed out of the news…
I understand the directive to not do research, but what’s wrong with blogging? I see nothing prejudicial about reporting events in the jury room. In fact it is a welcome transparency.
Reading comments on your blog might be a problem because of prejudice, but making comments of your own? Not so. It’s simply informing the public about a governmental process in dynamic action.
Having sat on a focus group in regard to events that led to a retrial and acquittal brought by The Innocense Project, I found it all intriguing as the case seesawed both for and against the defendents as bits of information were revealed. Even more interesting was that in the polling of 25 of us, 20 voted “not guilty”, but 14 voted that “they probably did do it”.
I see no reason why the public should not be apprised of this. Still more, I see no reason why the public should not be apprised of abuses by either the attorneys or the judges. Barring notes and commentary denies the public the means to make an informed decision during Prosecutor and Judicial elections.
Blogging about it afterward is different than blogging during, just as asking your spouse “What do you think about this piece of evidence?” after the verdict is different than asking about it during.
I was refering to writing blog comments, not reading responses. I see the problem with the latter, but simply commenting on your own experiences while they are happening doesn’t strike me as prejudicial.
The REALLY interesting posts, though would be of the nature of “That sleazy defense lawyer makes me think the defendent is guilty. Who else would hire someone so deceptive” or “That Prosecutor is just a glorified abusive punk. I don’t care if the defendent IS guilty, I don’t want to give this guy more of a swelled head than he already has.”, or even better “Who let this jerk on the bench. Maybe a really fucked up verdict would draw attention to this idiot and we could get rid of him.”