As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials Are Popping Up - NYTimes.com
The most famous film ever about juries, "12 Angry Men," clearly violates these same rules. In that film, Henry Fonda's character investigates the neighborhood and a pawn shop after hours, to disprove the plaintiff's case.
I fundamentally disagree with many of the base assumptions in this article. I think jurors come into the case with many preconceived ideas of how things work and who people are. Those preconceptions are not examined and challenged in court. Doing a little outside research to familiarize yourself with the facts seems like exactly what a jury *should* be doing.
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.
. . .
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.
But the rules of evidence, developed over hundreds of years of jurisprudence, are there to ensure that the facts that go before a jury have been subjected to scrutiny and challenge from both sides, said Olin Guy Wellborn III, a law professor at the University of Texas.