Jurors Inappropriately Using the Internet to Obtain Information During Trials
On occasion, jurors, despite being advised not to do so, have been using outside sources, including the internet, to secure information that should only be provided to them in the courtroom during the actual trial.
We were confronted with just this occurrence when we inadvertently learned that, after the trial had ended, one of the jurors had brought a dictionary into the jury room during their deliberations to determine the meaning of a word that had great significance in the jury’s verdict.
When this came to our attention, we made the appropriate motion and were successful in having the verdict set aside. Thereafter, we were able to negotiate a result fully satisfactory to our client. Surely, however, others may not be as fortunate. An opportunity does not always exist to correct the unfortunate result of a jury disregarding the instructions and directions of the court.
An article in The New York Times on March 18, 2009 commented on this very subject which is now receiving more and more attention. The article outlined a case in which a juror admitted to using the internet to research facts pertaining to the trial. Upon further investigation, the judge was shocked that eight of the jurors had done the same thing. As a result, the judge declared a mistrial.
When there is misconduct by the jury, the cost, the time and the emotional trauma of having to re-try a case will have a dreadful impact on everyone involved. When this occurs because jurors ignore the fact that it is wrong to rely upon any outside sources to reach their verdict, other than testimony and exhibits presented during the actual trial, the harm can be irreversible.
It seems reasonable to suggest that it might be up to the trial lawyer to make certain that the jurors are aware that outside sources are absolutely not to be used to secure information that they can then use to reach their verdict. That purpose is served only by evidence accepted by the court during the actual trial.
We believe we must be vigilant to address possible conduct by a jury in which it should not be engaged. We believe it would prove helpful if we urge the court to strongly caution the jury not to take any such inappropriate action. We believe that in doing so at the start of the trial, and perhaps once or twice during the course of the trial, and then finally during the jury charges, this strong message will be heard and will have a far better chance of being complied with.
