If you think that “Twitter” is a sound that a bird makes, “Pin It” is what you do with a corsage or “Google” relates to some type of eye movement, it is time to answer your clue phone, which hopefully is an electronic device at this point in time. Even if you consider yourself Internet savvy, practitioners must remain vigilant, particularly during trials, to ensure that jurors do not compromise justice within a legal proceeding by researching or communicating about cases on the web. Such unacceptable compromises of fairness may result in a mistrial or personal consequences for jurors. While there is no clear panacea for preventing such debacles, there are ways practitioners can attempt to stay ahead of the curve and avoid a case or trial being derailed.
Examples of Juror Malfeasance in N.J.
In New Jersey, Assignment Judge Peter Doyne recently found a juror, who was serving as a foreperson in a criminal case, guilty of contempt and fined him $500 for conducting independent research during deliberations despite the issuance of instructions prohibiting any and all independent research. After sharing this research with fellow jurors, they became deadlocked and a mistrial ultimately ensued. Unfortunately, this was not the first occasion on which Judge Doyne had been faced with such circumstances.
