Internet research leads to courtroom complications

Even if no e-books are involved, there is a particular kind of “tele-reading” we all do all the time, and have ever since the Internet became something you could put in a pocket: Internet research. Many of us consider the Internet to be our own personal ready reference guide, and consult it as naturally as we might glance at the watch on our wrist to check the time. I’m sure nobody who has ever worn a watch is a stranger to the aggravating sensation of repeatedly glancing at our wrist to check the time only to realize anew that we’ve forgotten our watch this morning—how much worse not being able to look up whatever random fact we’re curious about at the moment!

Similarly, we treat instant-messaging and social networking as extensions of the face-to-face conversations we used only to be able to have in close proximity to one another. It can be just as aggravating to think of some zinger and not be able to turn around and share it with a few hundred of our closest friends

But this Internet fact-checking and conversing has been causing problems for US courts ever since, A survey has shown that, since 1999, at least 90 verdicts have been challenged because jurors used the Internet in ways they weren’t supposed to. And with the convenience of the iPhone and 3G/4G Internet, the frequency of these results has been increasing: over half of the cases happened in the last two years.

And the contested results have not always come about as a result of something obvious, like publicly expressing a preconceived opinion before hearing the whole case or reading news coverage from outside the courtroom. One manslaughter conviction was overturned simply because the jury foreman looked up the definition of the word “prudent” in an online dictionary.

There are some efforts underway to restrict juror access to external information—confiscating technological devices at the courtroom door, or updating jury instructions to include specific technological prohibitions.

Last year, New York’s Office of Court Administration’s Committee on Criminal Jury Instructions also amended its recommended "jury admonitions" to include even more specific wording: "In this age of instant electronic communication and research, I want to emphasize that in addition to not conversing face to face with anyone about the case, you must not communicate with anyone about the case by any other means, including by telephone, text messages, email, internet chat or chat rooms, blogs, or social websites, such as facebook, myspace or twitter."

But others suggest that it might be a better idea to update the judicial understanding of the jury’s role in a case, given the changing mindset of the general public with regard to information access.

Georgia State University Law School professor Caren Myers Morrison says it’s frustrating for jurors when information presented at trial is confusing, especially when they know they can easily access more data online.

"We need to rethink the jury’s role for the 21st century and restore some of the jury’s active engagement in the process of fact-finding," she said.

As with so many cases of friction between the new Internet generation and the old way of doing things, this is a conflict that is only going to get worse as time goes on, unless some solution can be found. I wonder if it will be possible?

(Found via Slashdot.)