Is a more informed jury a better jury?

[Thrawn]

"Internet-Surfing Jurors Vex Judges

Some jurors have always had an urge to visit a crime scene or research a case they're considering, but now the Internet is making it much easier to play detective.

And courts across the country are wrestling with the problem.

"As simple as it might have been to research facts on their own in the past, now jurors don't have to have a brother-in-law who's a doctor or a next-door neighbor who's a dentist. Everyone has access to the world of doctors and dentists," says Laura A. Miller, the chair of the criminal litigation section of the American Bar Association and a partner at Nixon Peabody. '"

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1036630505766

[Sandman]

Is a misinformed jury worse than an uninformed one?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Is a misinformed jury worse than an uninformed one?

Probably, they can spread the misinfomation to other jurist.

[gofaster]

The basic goal of a trial lawyer is to present his case in a light that betters his interest.  In doing so, he presents only the facts that work to his advantage.  A good trial lawyer wants a jury that knows diddly squat about forensic science, or medicine, or law, or what have you.  Trial lawyers want jurors that will learn about things based on what the lawyer will tell them, and let the jurors decide which sides' argument makes more sense.

Jurors that step outside that little framework can undermine a lawyer's carefully-guided lessons presented through the evidence he introduces.  In short, juror research into a crime can undermine a lawyer's position.

So would justice be better served with juror access to Internet resources, or through the traditional "you only know what I tell you" trial evidence process?

[Mickey1992]

What about evidence or testimony that is declared inadmissible for whatever reason, including priors?  I don't think that a juror should be able to research or crawl county web sites for inadmissible evidence.

[Hortlund]

Having a jury in the first place is wrong.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Having a jury in the first place is wrong.

Please elaborate.  Personally, having a judge allow rediculous cases such as pickles burning ones tongue..I think THESE judges should be tried, and executed.

[Hortlund]

Well, if you bring a jury into a courtroom, they will bring their baggage with them. Predjudices, hate, fear, High or low iq, personal likes and dislikes etc.

Add a lawyer to the equation, and soon the trial starts to evolve around different things than it should be.

A good example (albeit an extreme one) of just how bad a jury system is would be the OJ trial. There focus shifted from the question of whether or not OJ was guilty, to the question "did the police plant evidence", "is that officer racist or not" etc.

The OJ trial is also an excellent example of what happens when you select stupid people for jury duty. The prosecution in the OJ case failed to explain the value of DNA evidence to the jurors, but they did try. The jururs were simply unable to comprehend that there is no better evidence than DNA evidence. Instead they got misled by the defense attorney

Lawyer
"So if you are saying that the odds of two people having the same DNA is more than 250 000 000 to 1, it could still happen"

Expert witness
"Uhh..theoretically yes but..."

Lawyer
"JUST answer the question thankyou"

Stupid juror #1 (thinking)
"Duuh, I suppose it could happen"

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, if you bring a jury into a courtroom, they will bring their baggage with them. Predjudices, hate, fear, High or low iq, personal likes and dislikes etc.
 

Damn straight. A judge doesn't bring any baggage. No prejudicial opinions, no hatred, no fear. They are not human.

[Mickey1992]

If you saw the evidence that was presented by the prosecution in the civil trial against OJ, you will realise what a hack job the prosecution did in the criminal trial against OJ.

OJ's aquittal was not because of an incompetent jury.

[Dune]

Originally posted by Mickey1992
If you saw the evidence that was presented by the prosecution in the civil trial against OJ, you will realise what a hack job the prosecution did in the criminal trial against OJ.

OJ's aquittal was not because of an incompetent jury.

Speaking as a prosecutor, Mickey's 100% correct.

And allowing jurors to get thier own info is 100% incorrect.  The rules of evidence are set in place to provide a level playing field.  Just as seeing the scene might make them believe the defendant, reading a bunch of gossip and the defendant's past history might make them believe the prosecution/plaintiff.  Either way they are seeing information that is inadmissable (or they'd get to see it) and are creating an unfair trial for one side.

[Thrawn]

Dune, what if a jurist already has expert infomation on a field relevant to the trail?

[Dune]

That will be examined during voir dire.  Both sides and the judge will interview all potential jurors before the trial starts.  This is the part were jurors are asked if they can be unbiased, know one of the parties, etc.  Both sides have a certain number of strikes where they can kick off a juror.  The judge has the same power if he thinks that one of the jurors would not be able to render a fair verdict.

Just having some experience is not grounds for automatic removal.  I've seen civil attorneys placed on criminal trial juries.  Two of the main questions are can the person give a fair verdict and would other jurors defer to that person's expertise in such a way that they are not giving their own verdict, but hers?

[Thrawn]

Thanks for the reponse!