Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Juror's research led to murder mistrial
standard speaker ^ | January 17, 2011 | Bob Kalinowski

Posted on 01/17/2011 5:11:04 AM PST by KeyLargo

Juror's research led to murder mistrial By Bob Kalinowski (Staff Writer) Published: January 17, 2011

Legal experts have coined them "Google mistrials."

Curious jurors seeking to conduct their own research surf the Internet about facts presented in court, bringing a halt to important court cases and tainting the outcome.

Sometimes it's done unwittingly. Other times it's done against a judge's specific directions.

On Friday, it ended Lamont Cherry's murder trial in Luzerne County court. A juror admitted to researching medical issues at home on her computer after five hours of deliberations Thursday ended in a deadlocked panel, prompting a cloud of confusion and eventually a mistrial in the case.

Cherry was acquitted of first-degree murder, while a mistrial was declared on two other counts of homicide, in the death of 12-month-old Zalayia McCloe in May 2009.

In today's technology-driven world and rise of Internet-capable smart phones, courts are increasingly declaring mistrials and overturning convictions after learning jurors used the Internet to research cases or commented about proceedings on social media sites, media law experts say.

The so-called "Google mistrials" have prompted courts across the country to adopt more specific rules for jurors' use of technology as it relates to the cases in which they serve.

"Traditionally, courts have told jurors not to read the newspaper, don't watch TV, or listen to radio coverage of the case. I take the position, in this day of age, that's not enough," said Eric Robinson, a Reno, Nev., attorney who is deputy director of the Reynolds Center for Courts and Media at the University of Nevada, Reno.

(Excerpt) Read more at standardspeaker.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: court; crime; jurors; justices
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Lots of good points of view here. As I see the general issue, lots of innocent people get convicted for a variety of reasons while even more of the guilty go free either by a faulty or manipulated judgment of the jury or by evidence being withheld or even the entire proceeding being ‘thrown out.’

I agree that the more a juror knows of the facts and circumstances about the entire case, the better. However, insuring that jurors don’t dupe themselves by reading editorials or other opinion pieces about the case is very problematic. After all, anyone can write or blog about the “facts” in a case when in reality the biased journalist or blogger either skewed the information or perhaps he made it up altogether.

After all, we all know that if you read something on the internet, it must be true.


21 posted on 01/17/2011 6:30:36 AM PST by citizen (Palin lost me when she dumped the people of Alaska to seek fame & fortune in the lower 48. Epic Fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: citizen

“I agree that the more a juror knows of the facts and circumstances about the entire case, the better. However, insuring that jurors don’t dupe themselves by reading editorials or other opinion pieces about the case is very problematic. After all, anyone can write or blog about the “facts” in a case when in reality the biased journalist or blogger either skewed the information or perhaps he made it up altogether.”

This is exactly why I would pay a web designer to put up a web site telling “my side” of the story if I was ever accused of anything. Jurors googling would then be pre-loaded to vote for me instead of against me.


22 posted on 01/17/2011 6:47:53 AM PST by trapped_in_LA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell
"Juries are notoriously comprised of dolts and clods, especially selected by opposing attorneys."

So true. I once had the experience of being called to sit on a federal jury. It was a medical malpractice case being heard by the "Rocket Docket" US District Court in Alexandria and I was looking forward to the experience. But the Voir Dire was eye-opening. The questions seemed to be designed to eliminate anyone with even the faintest modicum of professional expertise in any field. The final jury was composed of young housewives, younger students and feeble elderly folks. One woman who was ultimately selected was prone to disruptive outbursts and gave inappropriate and confrontational answers to the judge. Excepting the latter I don't think these people were dolts and clods, but they seemed ill-chosen for a case that was obviously going to hinge on complex medical and scientific evidence. The group that was struck were almost to a man highly-educated professionals.

Yes...I was struck. But I will humbly admit that I was the last strike, lest my previous comment seem boastful. ;-) Maybe I should have called the judge "Mister Judge"...that seemed to work for one girl.

23 posted on 01/17/2011 6:49:27 AM PST by jboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jboot

jboot, Your account of the “dumbing down” process during jury selection is appalling and all too true.

A biggest part of the problems w/ our jury system can be summed up in one word: lawyers. Apply such descriptive adjectives as you see fit in a given case - smart slick sleazy crooked paid-off dirty stupid uninterested etc and many more. This lawyer pool is to include the trial judges and the lawmakers that craft our laws and helped to form the rules of evidence. And also all in the appellate system up to and including the Supremes.

There is a reason why lawyer jokes are so ghastly funny. They are true.


24 posted on 01/17/2011 7:12:22 AM PST by citizen (Palin lost me when she dumped the people of Alaska to seek fame & fortune in the lower 48. Epic Fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
No, it's getting harder for judges to insure that juries are not influenced by inadmissable evidence.

The idea that juries are supposed to judge based entirely on the evidence presented to them, without considering the entirety of their knowledge, is an ahistorical invention of law school professors. We have the right to be judged by a jury of our peers precisely because they are presumed to have a knowledge of the circumstances that a judge cannot.

25 posted on 01/17/2011 7:40:24 AM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All
Mark Twain on juries: Jury

So, the opinions expressed here are not new.

26 posted on 01/17/2011 7:49:12 AM PST by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Jurors must be detectives, they must be intelligent, diligent and be servants of only the “Whole Truth”. This modern judicial confection of limiting evidence and testimony and turning the Jury into nothing more than caged monkeys is a perversion of Justice.


27 posted on 01/17/2011 7:53:35 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets; jdege
No, it's getting harder for judges to insure that juries are not influenced by inadmissable evidence. How you feel if you were one of the Duke defendants and the case had gone to trial and you knew the jurors were googling the New York Times' and Rayleigh Observor's coverage of the case?

Exactly so. The difficult truth of any human system of justice is that lacks the omniscience of God. Without that certainty of knowing, truly, of guilt or innocence, one comes up with a human system to administer justice. This may be a monarch sitting in judgement over subjects, a panel of civil law judges, or any number of other systems, including our own. A human system of "Justice" can even be wholly unjust, such as the vile treatment of Jews under the Nuremberg laws.

Generally speaking of our American system, (and the related British system), we choose to pursue such justice as we perceive to mesh with the rights of man. We choose therefore to create rules that treat the accused, equally, as innocent until proven guilty (except in traffic court). Thus, those protections that we weep and moan over when applied to the guilty (or even the "he's such a villain he's gotta be guilty), are often the last defenses of the innocent against the power of the state.

Of course, we all trust the state and its agents never to abuse their power, right?




On a related topic, see here: A Solitary Jailhouse Lawyer Argues His Way Out of Prison - WSJ.com
28 posted on 01/17/2011 8:08:32 AM PST by Jagermonster (They will not force us. They will stop degrading us. They will not control us. We will be victorious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell
Juries are notoriously comprised of dolts and clods

I've not had the opportunity to do this, but I've been told that to avoid jury duty, just tell 'em I'm an engineer (the truth, in my case).

This is because the last thing anyone wants in a courtroom is a smart person who's used to figuring things out for themselves.

29 posted on 01/17/2011 8:14:25 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: citizen; jdege
Actually, I know of a case, pre-internet, where a juror did outside research and changed a verdict. A very smart guy I know was serving as juror in a medical malpractice case. He went to library to research the procedure during the trial, by reading medical literature. He found that the procedure had a relatively high failure rate, though the risk was considered medically justified.

During the course of the trial he saw the plaintiff, whom he described as a [portly gentleman], enter a late model LTD outside the court, driven by his wife, herself a [portly lady]. He report this incident (but not his research) to the judge. The judge told him as long as the incident did not influence his decision as a juror, could remain on the jury. He did not inform the judge about his research.

Initially the jury was almost unanimous in wanting to award the plaintiff some monetary compensation. My friend proceeded to give them the benefit of his research, essentially giving “expert testimony” during deliberations. In the end, he turned the entire jury and the plaintiff got the figurative donut to go along with the dozen or so jelly filled he probably consumed on a daily basis.

After the trial, one of the court officers told him that the plaintiff was a professional litigant, that he constantly was bringing cases, especially against doctors. Walking to his car in the parking lot, he happened to pass the doctor who had been the defendant and was pleased to give him a grin of tacit acknowledgment.

Justice can work in strange ways.

30 posted on 01/17/2011 8:16:26 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jdege

criminal trials are supposed to be unfair.

They are unfair to the prosecutors. Jurries are not supposed to be impartial.


31 posted on 01/17/2011 8:17:57 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jdege

The right to trial by jury was meant to prevent the government from being able to railroad the innocent. All it takes is one hanging judge and one Mike Nifong. The jury is meant to be a check on their power. Think of the “show trials” in benighted People’s Republics all over the world every day.


32 posted on 01/17/2011 8:24:11 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
The right to trial by jury was meant to prevent the government from being able to railroad the innocent.
True, so long as you understand that "innocent" does not always mean "did not violate the law".
Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

33 posted on 01/17/2011 8:39:39 AM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson