235:
deterrent because it solely shrinks the pool of individuals who wish to participate. A plausible way to prevent this misconduct from taking place is ensuring that the jury members, before the trial, understand completely "what constitutes research, their curiosity, and their perceived "moral duty" to render verdicts based on complete information". Another successful deterrent is to show how using outside influence is negative, how the life of the individual on trial is in the hands of these chosen jury members (Bell, 94) and to take away their sources of internet, such as phones, before the actual trial commences.
256:
carrying out research online). This created uncertainty and possible inconsistency, as judicial directions to jurors could vary. The Law
Commission of England & Wales felt it would be better to create a separate criminal offence, as this would make the law clearer for jurors. The Law Commission also felt that the creation of a new offence would give jurors suspected of misconduct greater due process protections, as contempt was tried according to summary court procedure, whereas the proposed offence would be an indictable offence, and therefore subject to the due process protections of a full jury trial.
264:
of the evidence presented in the proceedings on the issueâ. Those found guilty of one of the new offences will be liable to imprisonment for up to two years, and will be disqualified from further service for a decade. What distinguishes these new offences from the existing option of using contempt proceedings is the fact jurors would now be proceeded against on indictment: that they would be tried by their peers for alleged misconduct. This represents a significant change in juror management techniques, as it is probable that criminal trial jurors accused of misconduct have never been tried in this way.
206:
with the case, and they are told they are not allowed to use the
Internet to research anything or to send out or receive any information that would compromise the integrity and fairness of the case at hand. This is definitely a challenge as the Internet is ever present in our society today. Another major problem, aside from the fact that a large majority of people have access to the Internet, is that the information individuals find may not be the entire truth, or may not be 100% accurate. When outside information is brought into a trial, it causes difficulties in ensuring no
183:(1) "information about parties and witnesses" referring to information about a defendantâs past, background information on a specific employer or business, both publicized information and private information such as driving records, and tickets. All this information is easily accessible over the Internet and all this information was shared among jury members in specific cases. The main outlets usually include
172:. The use of the Internet has also given jurors the ability to easily and readily access information that they may want to find out about. As stated in Bell's article, many jurors do not have the time during breaks to go out to a library and locate hard copy sources of information needed, thus making the Internet the primary source because all it requires is the simple push of a button.
247:
Eltisâs article, simply dismissing the misconduct as unacceptable would be less destructive than a mistrial. Dismissing this misconduct will be destructive since it would not cause the trial to be fair. Overall, it is felt that a mistrial is quite a harsh decision, especially since
Internet use by a juror is considered âimpossible to controlâ.
268:
Former jurors found guilty of one of the new offences will be disqualified from jury service for ten years, even if they have been fined rather than imprisoned. Such disqualifications had previously required: a sentence of imprisonment; a community order; a community rehabilitation order; a community
230:
This method is slightly more effective because not only does it minimize the number of jurors to stand during trial, therefore eliminating potential bias and use of outside sources, but it "would also systematically exclude younger jurors and those who otherwise have basic experience using computers
263:
The Act makes it an offence for jurors to âresearch the case during the trial periodâ, to âdisclose information to another member of the jury during the trial periodâ, and to engage in âconduct from which it may reasonably be concluded that the intends to try the issue otherwise than on the basis
205:
Since the
Internet is frequently used to taint certain verdicts, many judges have put bans and limitations on jury members and their use of the Internet. When certain individuals are called to be on jury duty, they are told they are not allowed to communicate with other people who are not involved
246:
are the common response in cases where juror misconduct has occurred. Mistrials can be costly and thus will be avoided if possible. When mistrials are seen as a solution, they are compared to wasted assets âwhen it could have easily been avoidedâ. If the possibility presents itself, according to
255:
Under the common law, jurors could be charged with contempt of court if they were found to have carried out independent research into the case they were trying. Proving that a juror was guilty of a contempt required proof that he/she had acted contrary to a judicial order (e.g. to refrain from
149:
and 6th amendment in the United States are built around the fact that everyone is required to have a fair trial free from bias. There have been multiple instances where certain cases required retrials because of bias on the part of one or more of the jury members. The
Internet, while it is the
234:
If a jury member is discovered to have brought in outside information, and juror misconduct is clearly present, then the jury member in question may be fined by the judge. This seems to be a deterrent to try to prevent future juror misconduct mishaps. It has been found to not be a successful
120:
where a member of the jury, against the direct instructions by the judge to not use the
Internet, looked up the definition of the illness that the individual on trial was stated to be suffering. This jury member also looked up symptoms and whether lying was an effect of suffering with this
154:, the use of the Internet within trials is not a new occurrence. It has been found in many cases, jurors who have searched for words unfamiliar to them, done extensive research, "engaged in at-home experiments, visited accident scenes, and otherwise obtained specialized knowledge".
198:(2) "Scientific and Technical Information". This source of information refers to using the Internet to perform their own form of investigation on the side without actually having to go to the physical scene of the crime. This form of personal investigation may use
269:
punishment order; a community punishment and rehabilitation order; a drug treatment and testing order; or a drug abstinence order. The 2015 Act introduces for the first time the principle that a fine may also be sufficient for temporary juror disqualification.
167:
These sources seem to revolve around cases which include members of the jury searching for additional information about a certain term or illness that is significant in the case at hand. Usually the main outlets are encyclopedic definitions or
115:
trial. She was found to be tweeting to her friends and asking them to poll whether they thought that the man being tried was guilty or not; whether he committed the rape or not. Another example was the case of
150:
primary source to find additional information and details about another individual, does not necessarily mean that the information it provides is correct or accurate. According to Bellâs article,
146:
231:
and the
InternetâŚ". According to Bellâs article, the main reason behind why outside research is often conducted is the desire to satisfy one's curiosity.
222:, housing the jurors in a hotel under the control of court officers and limiting their access to communications and people other than court staff.
202:
to acquire specific locations and specific fine points about a crime scene such as neighbourhoods, distances between certain homes and areas, etc.
659:
125:. The juror did learn that lying was in fact a "symptom"; however, she chose to gather this information during the discussion to find a verdict.
624:
Eltis, Karen. "Courts, Litigants and the
Digital Age. Law, Ethics and Practice", University of Ottawa. Columbia Law School, pp. 90â118.
107:
An example mentioned in Eltis's article "Courts, Litigants and the
Digital Age. Law, Ethics and Practice" is a juror in Manchester who
516:
315:
Eltis, Karen. "Courts, Litigants and the
Digital Age. Law, Ethics and Practice". University of Ottawa. Columbia Law School. p. 108.
142:
68:
that they may have found themselves into the trial which has not been allowed by the judges or lawyers and is used to create
651:
503:
210:
and a fair trial. Having outside information that is also inaccurate adds more bias and more unfairness to a trial.
694:
191:, and online encyclopedias and dictionaries. This would overthrow the entire trial thus causing an automatic
689:
387:
William Bell, Daniel. "Juror Misconduct and the Internet". American Journal of Criminal Law, 2010, p. 83.
588:
556:
364:
Legal Information Institute(LII). "Fifth Amendment: An Overview". Cornell University Law School, 2012.
373:
Legal Information Institute(LII)."Sixth Amendment: Amendment VI. Cornell University Law School, 2012.
45:
Communication by the jury with those outside of the trial/court case. Those on the outside include â
679:
141:, or a broader definition or they are outsourcing trial information. The legal system and both the
137:
has frequently been used by jury members to gain access to additional information about a certain
219:
646:"Legal Information Institute (LII). Cornell University Law School. Web. Retrieved Dec 8, 2012.
512:
259:
The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 brought these proposals into law. As Crosby explains:
77:
643:
351:
684:
601:
569:
138:
122:
180:
This type of information includes access to different sources of information such as:
673:
619:
83:âConducting experiments regarding theories of the case outside the courtâs presenceâ.
199:
639:
337:
301:
97:
93:
73:
660:
Juror Punishment, Juror Misconduct and the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
534:"Juror Punishment, Juror Guidance and the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015"
618:"USLegal Definitions. "Juror Misconduct Law&Legal Definition" (2001-2012)"
31:
243:
169:
101:
46:
192:
188:
134:
65:
184:
108:
54:
35:
50:
533:
627:
William Bell, Daniel (2010). "Juror Misconduct and the Internet".
58:
23:
652:
Contempt of Court (1): Juror Misconduct and Internet Publications
505:
Contempt of Court (1): Juror Misconduct and Internet Publications
207:
112:
69:
27:
100:
or outlook; especially: a personal and sometimes unreasoned
638:
Cornell University Law School. Web. Retrieved Dec 8, 2012.
302:
Merriam-Webster. An EncyclopĂŚdia Britannica Company (2012).
311:
309:
288:
286:
284:
282:
488:
486:
383:
381:
379:
8:
551:"Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015": s77.
34:is in progression or after it has reached a
476:
474:
464:
462:
416:
414:
404:
402:
323:
321:
278:
597:
586:
565:
554:
16:Misconduct by a juror in a legal case
7:
583:"Juries Act 1974": Sch2, Pt2, para7.
64:When the jury member brings outside
72:on the part of the juror. This new
41:Misconduct can take several forms:
511:. LAW COM No 340. pp. 62â68.
14:
636:Legal Information Institute(LII).
152:Juror Misconduct and the Internet
644:"Sixth Amendment: Amendment VI."
634:"Fifth Amendment: An Overview".
629:American Journal of Criminal Law
26:is violated by a member of the
143:Charter of Rights and Freedoms
1:
158:Forms of Internet information
631:, Vol. 38:1, pp. 81â98.
502:Law Commission, The (2013).
214:Methods used to prevent bias
711:
438:Bell 2010, p. 87 & 88.
396:Bell 2010, pp. 84 & 85
239:Mistrials and alternatives
22:is when the law of the
596:Cite journal requires
564:Cite journal requires
266:
292:"USLegal Definitions"
261:
80:their final decision.
111:openly throughout a
664:Criminal Law Review
538:Criminal Law Review
163:Traditional sources
532:Crosby, K (2015).
220:jury sequestration
480:Bell 2010, p. 97.
468:Bell 2010, p. 94.
456:Bell 2010, p. 88.
447:Bell 2010, p. 92.
420:Bell 2010, p. 86.
408:Bell 2010, p. 85.
352:"Sixth Amendment"
338:"Fifth Amendment"
702:
655:(LAW COM No 340)
649:Law Commission,
606:
605:
599:
594:
592:
584:
580:
574:
573:
567:
562:
560:
552:
548:
542:
541:
529:
523:
522:
510:
499:
493:
490:
481:
478:
469:
466:
457:
454:
448:
445:
439:
436:
430:
427:
421:
418:
409:
406:
397:
394:
388:
385:
374:
371:
365:
362:
356:
355:
348:
342:
341:
334:
328:
325:
316:
313:
304:
299:
293:
290:
118:Wardlaw v. State
61:about the caseâ.
20:Juror misconduct
710:
709:
705:
704:
703:
701:
700:
699:
695:Legal procedure
670:
669:
615:
610:
609:
595:
585:
582:
581:
577:
563:
553:
550:
549:
545:
531:
530:
526:
519:
508:
501:
500:
496:
491:
484:
479:
472:
467:
460:
455:
451:
446:
442:
437:
433:
429:Bell 2010, p.87
428:
424:
419:
412:
407:
400:
395:
391:
386:
377:
372:
368:
363:
359:
350:
349:
345:
336:
335:
331:
326:
319:
314:
307:
300:
296:
291:
280:
275:
253:
241:
228:
216:
178:
165:
160:
131:
90:
76:may be used to
17:
12:
11:
5:
708:
706:
698:
697:
692:
687:
682:
672:
671:
668:
667:
656:
647:
641:
632:
625:
622:
614:
611:
608:
607:
598:|journal=
575:
566:|journal=
543:
524:
517:
494:
492:Eltis, p. 113.
482:
470:
458:
449:
440:
431:
422:
410:
398:
389:
375:
366:
357:
343:
329:
327:Eltis, p. 109.
317:
305:
294:
277:
276:
274:
271:
252:
249:
240:
237:
227:
224:
218:One method is
215:
212:
177:
174:
164:
161:
159:
156:
139:mental illness
130:
127:
123:mental illness
89:
86:
85:
84:
81:
62:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
707:
696:
693:
691:
690:Legal systems
688:
686:
683:
681:
678:
677:
675:
665:
661:
657:
654:
653:
648:
645:
642:
640:
637:
633:
630:
626:
623:
620:
617:
616:
612:
603:
590:
579:
576:
571:
558:
547:
544:
539:
535:
528:
525:
520:
518:9780102987362
514:
507:
506:
498:
495:
489:
487:
483:
477:
475:
471:
465:
463:
459:
453:
450:
444:
441:
435:
432:
426:
423:
417:
415:
411:
405:
403:
399:
393:
390:
384:
382:
380:
376:
370:
367:
361:
358:
353:
347:
344:
339:
333:
330:
324:
322:
318:
312:
310:
306:
303:
298:
295:
289:
287:
285:
283:
279:
272:
270:
265:
260:
257:
250:
248:
245:
238:
236:
232:
226:Questionnaire
225:
223:
221:
213:
211:
209:
203:
201:
196:
194:
190:
186:
181:
176:Novel sources
175:
173:
171:
162:
157:
155:
153:
148:
147:5th amendment
145:and both the
144:
140:
136:
128:
126:
124:
119:
114:
110:
105:
103:
99:
95:
87:
82:
79:
75:
71:
67:
63:
60:
56:
52:
48:
44:
43:
42:
39:
37:
33:
29:
25:
21:
663:
650:
635:
628:
589:cite journal
578:
557:cite journal
546:
537:
527:
504:
497:
452:
443:
434:
425:
392:
369:
360:
346:
332:
297:
267:
262:
258:
254:
242:
233:
229:
217:
204:
200:Google Earth
197:
182:
179:
166:
151:
132:
129:Social media
117:
106:
91:
40:
19:
18:
658:K Crosby, '
98:temperament
94:inclination
74:information
680:Misconduct
674:Categories
613:References
540:: 578â593.
251:Punishment
32:court case
244:Mistrials
170:Knowledge
102:judgement
78:influence
51:attorneys
47:witnesses
193:mistrial
189:Facebook
135:Internet
66:evidence
55:bailiffs
30:while a
666:578-593
185:Twitter
109:tweeted
36:verdict
685:Juries
515:
59:judges
509:(PDF)
273:Notes
57:, or
24:court
602:help
570:help
513:ISBN
208:bias
133:The
113:rape
92:"An
88:Bias
70:bias
28:jury
662:'
96:of
676::
593::
591:}}
587:{{
561::
559:}}
555:{{
536:.
485:^
473:^
461:^
413:^
401:^
378:^
320:^
308:^
281:^
195:.
187:,
104:"
53:,
49:,
38:.
621:.
604:)
600:(
572:)
568:(
521:.
354:.
340:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.