Yes, think about it, because you forgot to read that little word “single” before the word “truth.” (For future reference, the italics mean your’re supposed to pay attention to it.)
Don’t confuse epistemology with mechanics.
That’s the thing. You’re expecting the jurors to buy into the ethics of the profession–ethics that are quite often at odds with the morality of the general public. Neither side has any problem with trying to trick not only you, but also the witnesses that are your main source of information.
The purely adversarial system actually encourages jurors to do what you don’t want them to do. They can’t trust either side, so they look somewhere else to get information that is not tainted with an agenda.
It’s like expecting people to get their unbiased news from watching just Fox News and reading the Huffington Post. Most people would rather try to find a more neutral source.
So how many truths do you think there are when it comes down to a choice between either guilty or innocent?
Because this honestly isn’t an actual problem in the law. The problem is not that jurors have insufficient information. They have plenty of information. They have too much information. It’s the job of the court to focus their attention on the information that the law deems relevant. The parties are responsible for introducing relevant information. Experts are introduced to introduce expert information, all in a format that can be challenged by the other side. The law considers it a problem for jurors to have either irrelevant or prejudicial information. You would just be exacerbating the problem.
There’s going to be one for each juror, depending on which web sites he or she looks at. Even if they don’t look at websites, as acsenray says:
[QUOTE=acsenray]
The problem is not that jurors have insufficient information. They have plenty of information…
[/quote]
The important thing is that a defendant have the full array of resources for a defense, and as we all know, that all too often is not the case. But that’s a different issue. It’s NOT because the jurors are being denied the opportunity to play at electronic Sherlock Holmes.
Of course this is the ideal expectation all prosecutors and defense attorneys aspire to. But it doesn’t always happen. Or relevant information is suppressed for the wrong reason, all with the best of intentions. Or in rare cases, even with indifferent or bad intentions.
So how do we ensure all relevant information is introduced if say for example, some interested person familiar with the case (a juror maybe) just happens to become aware of it, through no fault of their own? Ask to removed from the jury? Send an anonymous email to the judge? What would you suggest, if anything?
I suspect that all of those who are arguing for jurors to be able to do their own side research have never actually served on a jury. When you do serve on a jury, the judge and lawyers explain very clearly why you must not self-admit your own self-sought evidence, and the trial experience brings home that point.
It still isn’t clear that this is such a huge problem. 90 cases reported since when? Over half in the last 2 years? So 45+ cases in the last 2 years? Where, in the whole country? How does this translate to “many jurors are ignoring those instructions”? This reminds me of the article on Yahoo just a couple days ago about how because of smartphones people are not looking where they’re walking while they’re using their smartphones, but when you read the article it says they’re texting, which isn’t really news.
Really? Anti-vaxers reading lies about the evils of vaccinations on a random blog and not protecting their kids is a good thing? Preventing this would lead to worse results, and I’m not for it, but there are negative consequences.
First, I suspect that many cases are such that you won’t find anything on the web anyhow. However, logically analyzing the testimony is something jurors are allowed to do, and lets you determine if one side or the other is lying. When I was on a jury I was able to make a pretty good logical case in the jury room that the defendant’s story held up, and we convicted on one ballot. (I later found out additional information that we were right.)
Say you read in the paper that a witness to a crime saw something terribly incriminating - but the prosecution doesn’t use it. Would you convict on this? Maybe you don’t know that the prosecution, on examining the witness more closely, discovered that he was clearly lying, and the papers never bothered finding this out. Is assuming that this witness is credible really lead to justice?
No doubt in some cases a juror is much smarter than either judge or attorney, but I suspect on the average this is not true. If judges threw out evidence arbitrarily I could see it, but the rules of evidence are there for a reason.
That’s why the first 12 people in the door don’t get empaneled. Yes, jurors have biases, and it is the job of the attorney and judge to exclude those who will not be able to overcome their biases in the interest of justice.
I agree that information is easier to access, which is why judges need to make it clear that this is not allowed, and why idiots who don’t listen need to be made examples of from time to time.
You mean the defendant succeeded in convincing you he was guilty?
One thing that needs to be reminded is that the majority of information that is “prevented” to be seen in front of a jury is done so at the request of the defense - infromation prejudicail OR not correctly obtained. I would say that it is rare - if not impossible - for the prosecution to prevent known evidence that favors the defense to be seen by the jury.
That has nothing to do with one side or the other not presenting everything it can - or even wayward prosecutors having misconduct (the Njfong incident ) - but those are the exception and not the norm.
As its been said many times, there are a lot of people who can get out of jury duty. I don’t really believe that the 12 who are left are the first 12 in the jury pool who have no biases that cannot be overcome. Everyone has biases and preconceived notions. These 12 have just been randomly selected due to some extraneous factor. Other than a few bits of common information, the lawyer doesn’t sit down and talk to all of the jurors personall to find out how hard it would be for them to overcome their own biases.
Take me for instance, I was almost on a jury once. I was called up to the jury box, sat down, and then immediately removed by the next lawyer. He didn’t know anything about me other than my outward appearance and that I was a student. How could he know whether or not I have biases or not? The jury selection pool is filled with people that one side or the other tries to stack. Talk about judging a book by its cover, the lawyers know nothing of the jurors yet think that they’re not qualified? They have no idea, they’re guessing as much as we are.
Judges can make whatever they want clear, but unless there is sequestering, or searches of the juror’s smart phone or home computer, or one of them is stupid enough to blab about googling, then there is no way to catch them. I can tell you right now that if I ever serve on a jury, I’d google everything from the case to the lawyers and the judge and the defendant. Having more information makes me a better jurist. After all, in the end, the instructions are for us to use our personal judgement of the fact. Many things are “up for the jury to decide”, so why shouldn’t I be the one to decide if something relevant or not? Give me the information, change the rules to allow me to bring my concerns directly to the lawyers, and that would allow the most justice to be done
Regardless of the fact that you are under oath to serve as instructed upon threat of being held in contempt?
How would they know?
And before you say it, I don’t mean that if I can get away with something then it’s ok. My reasons for doing so have been stated: more information makes me a better jurist. I don’t see how they can catch me
Ironic how in the response to my first post on this thread, I was told lawyers were never really honest mean doing the work of the law but advocates trying to win their case. Do you think that if they can get something left out of the evidence that can do damage to their case, they wouldn’t do it? Given such an advocate, not of the truth or justice, but of their own side, why would I blindly trust that the information they tell me is irrelevent is actually irrelevent?
Everything is relevent to me, unless they can say otherwise
The root problem is that both sides are not seeking the truth but to win their side. Our courts shouldn’t be adversarial, it should be cooperative. Both sides should seek to find the truth, not win
That’s sure going to win you alot of points with the vast majority of the population who already believe lawyers are for the most part, the scum of the earth. 
The judge decides what is relevant, based on centuries of consideration of what is fair and just to admit to court. If you can’t accept that, then you aren’t qualified to serve on a jury. Ever.
I don’t believe we’ve had centuries of fair and just courts
The lawyers and judges declare themselves fair and just. If you can’t accept that you aren’t qualified to believe everything you are told. :rolleyes:
If you don’t believe the legal system is operating in good faith, then you really shouldn’t be participating in it at all.