I think so.
If one assumes that (supposedly) intelligent, impartial people chosen to sit on a jury are incapable to dealing with news, then why have juries anyway?
I don’t understand why it is a tenet (of the American legal system) that one needs to have people who don’t read newspapers, watch the news, interact with others,etc.
If I were on trial, I would want people who are intelligent, aware, and communicative, deciding my case.
Or (as the legal system implies), people who are “tainted” by news outside of the courtroom, and reach the wrong conclusions?
Really? I’d want people who were predisposed to find me innocent.
I know you’re being completely serous TriPolar, but that still broke me up 
I’m with ralph124c: I want an intelligent jury, and one that is willing to listen to the judge’s instructions.
The best jury I ever served on was trying a drunk-driving case. It seemed pretty open-and-shut, but we took two hours, and we worked at it. We took a preliminary vote, and it was 12-0 for conviction. But we took turns playing “devil’s advocate,” trying to look for any angle we’d overlooked. Every one of us had a turn playing Henry Fonda’s role in “Twelve Angry Men.”
In the end, we convicted the blighter, but I defy anyone to say he didn’t get fair treatment from his jury.
I’ve heard horror stories, alas, from other jurors, in cases where it didn’t go the way it ought to.
The problem is that a tainted jury, one exposed to all sorts of information in the press, will have heard information that isn’t in the trial. Inadmissible or totally wrong. I bowed out of the Martin threads long ago. Do you think that most there would be capable of being impartial? people following the case have heard media accounts that were premature and outright false in the rush to get a scoop. Then add in all the rules of evidence that are there to protect your rights. If you heard about a supposed key piece of evidence in the media and then didn’t see it in the trial are you going to forget it? It may have been excluded for a damn good reason.
Thats without even mentioning how often the media gets things wrong.
That’s why I think our jury system should be modified. Juries should have the right to ask any questions of the lawyers or the judge. If the jury hears about outside evidence, they should be able to question why it wasn’t presented at the trial. If the jury feels the lawyer on one side should have asked a question, they should have the right to ask it, or have it explained to them why it wasn’t asked. I really don’t care much if they are essentially doing the lawyer’s job, I feel the courts’ job is to get to the truth and it needs to be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. Seriously, I don’t see how there can be a downside but I’m sure Dopers will tell me 
Most jurors won’t know the rules of evidence, and would be likely to ask “forbidden” questions. The judge would spend a lot of time sustaining objections to their questions.