The assumption some of you seem to be making is that the lawyers are just trying to bullshit you and any information you get from the internet is legit. Both premises are hard to defend.
Remember there are two lawyers on opposite sides and a judge in the middle. If somebody was to try to deceive the jury you can be sure the other side would quickly object. So each lawyer keeps the other lawyer honest.
Sure, some evidence will be withheld as inadmissable. But there are actually good reasons for that. They’re not doing it just to lie to you.
As for the other premise of online information being true: is this your first day on the internet? You can find more bullshit in an hour online than you’d get in a trial lasting six months.
Just being in a profession isn’t necessary a problem. I was on a jury where the case revolved around mechanical engineering ( a possibly fault elevator.) One prospective juror was not only a mechanical engineer but had served as an expert witness. He was dismissed for saying, quite honestly, that he would not be able to evaluate the case only on the evidence and not on his knowledge of mechanical engineering.
It seems to me that anyone in favor of jurors doing independent research is saying that a person’s liberty should depend on the quality of information on the Internet. That sounds pretty dangerous. It also sounds like they are saying that the average juror’s common sense trumps three years of law school, passing the bar, years of experience, and hundreds of years of development of our legal system. Hmmm.
I understand the desire to look it up. When I was up for being on the jury of a murder case, it was hard to keep from looking up the details of the murder, which had happened quite some time ago. I did it as soon as I was free.
I think it should depend on the quality of all available information, distilled down to the actual truth through a trial conducted by competent, honest people.
There I go being the idealist again. Oh well… :rolleyes:
Yeah, well, the very idea of “determining actual truth” is more a philosophical question than a practical one. Our society recognizes that difficulty and opts to create a fair procedural system to get as close as we can to the ideal.
The people “running the system” are the parties of interest in the case and the judge. Seems pretty logical to me. Someone who isn’t a party of interest should have free rein to inject whatever he or she wants?
What about the defendant? What about the ones that spent years in prison because of some evidence that wasn’t available at their trial for one reason or another? Surely they must be a “party of interest.”
I have a real problem with your idea of truth as a philosophical question. Don’t assume the lawyers and judges are always going to get it right, or even always have their client’s and constituent’s best interests in mind. And don’t say that’s the system, that’s the best we can do, you’ll just have to deal with it either. Things can a do change all the time. The time when institutions most resist change is probably the best measure of when they need it the most.
It is their responsibility and their counsels’ responsibility to use the system to state their case. The question of evidence unavailable at a trial is not one that can be solved by destroying the sanctity of the jury system.
I don’t. That’s the whole point. The system does what it can to give them the flexibility to get it right. And one of those ways it does that is by allowing them to control what information the jury is allowed to see.
What do you imagine is going to happen if juries are allowed to seek information independent of the courtroom? As it is, juries are heavily anti-defendant by nature. It’s in the defendant’s interest that the judge helps to keep irrelevant and otherwise prejudicial information away from the jury.
Ah, so the sky is falling, is it? Because smart phones suddenly make jurors better at determining relevance than a trained judge and counsel?
The accessibility and ease in which such information can be gotten would make that quite a trick to accomplish. I’m not saying its impossible, but you’re fighting an uphill battle. Sure there is a lot of crap out there, but its part of the jobs of the lawyers to filter out that crap. But all jurors bring with them their own biases and I don’t think that playing to those biases make things any more fair than acknowledging they exist and presenting a case despite them.
Is it that much more fair when OJ’s jury was sequestered and his defense team was able to get 8 blacks on it? Or would it have been better to let them out with instructions not to believe anything except what’s provable in the court room? I don’t know, but I know that unless you’re prepared to sequester people for 10 months like that jury, people are going to look up info. Better to address that info than pretend it doesn’t exist
Off topic. I don’t have an issue with the adversarial system per say, my focus is more on the jurors themselves. Be they profession or amateur, there should not be a forced ignorance upon them. Maybe if both sides were taken questions from the jury and address them, the truth can be arrived at with greater accuracy. I guess I’m naive, I still think the system should be able finding the truth, not who can lie better.
That wasn’t my argument, but thanks for trying. The argument was that more information, not less, addressed by both sides in a case, provides a better foundation for juries to try their cases than forced ignorance, which, as I pointed out, is almost impossible nowadays without sequestering them
You’re mixing apples and oranges. Keeping the system fair and honest–preventing corruption–has nothing to do with your insistence upon some kind of single “truth” that can be distilled. That’s something for the movies.
Take a deep breath, because there’s not much oxygen leaping high enough to get to that conclusion. Your argument is not so simply cut and dried as a dismissive characterization of smart phones and juries. I believe most people (jurors included) are probably smarter than you seem to give them credit for and anything that gives them an opportunity to spot a crooked judge or sleazy lawyer should not be ruled out based on philosophical concerns of the parties interested in protecting or hiding their own corruption or stupidity.
That’s why we have a jury system. They are supposed to apply their smartness to the evidence presented to them in court, and not evidence that the judge and the parties consider irrelevant or prejudicial.
They’re not there to spot crooked judges or sleazy lawyers and we don’t need or want them to do that. They are there to evaluate the credibility and the weight of the evidence before them. Period.
Whether a judge is crooked is something we have other systems in place to handle. Whether a lawyer is sleazy has nothing to do with evaluating the evidence presented in court.
I guess I just wish to try and understand why you don’t believe there may be a way to utilize our growing electronic information bonanza to positive effect in the courtroom? Breaking down communication barriers has never to my knowledge been a bad thing, generally speaking. Maybe it’s about time the rules of evidence had a good going over?
