[citizen]

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.

[trapped_in_LA]

“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.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

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.