Posted on 01/17/2011 5:11:04 AM PST by KeyLargo
Juror's research led to murder mistrial By Bob Kalinowski (Staff Writer) Published: January 17, 2011
Legal experts have coined them "Google mistrials."
Curious jurors seeking to conduct their own research surf the Internet about facts presented in court, bringing a halt to important court cases and tainting the outcome.
Sometimes it's done unwittingly. Other times it's done against a judge's specific directions.
On Friday, it ended Lamont Cherry's murder trial in Luzerne County court. A juror admitted to researching medical issues at home on her computer after five hours of deliberations Thursday ended in a deadlocked panel, prompting a cloud of confusion and eventually a mistrial in the case.
Cherry was acquitted of first-degree murder, while a mistrial was declared on two other counts of homicide, in the death of 12-month-old Zalayia McCloe in May 2009.
In today's technology-driven world and rise of Internet-capable smart phones, courts are increasingly declaring mistrials and overturning convictions after learning jurors used the Internet to research cases or commented about proceedings on social media sites, media law experts say.
The so-called "Google mistrials" have prompted courts across the country to adopt more specific rules for jurors' use of technology as it relates to the cases in which they serve.
"Traditionally, courts have told jurors not to read the newspaper, don't watch TV, or listen to radio coverage of the case. I take the position, in this day of age, that's not enough," said Eric Robinson, a Reno, Nev., attorney who is deputy director of the Reynolds Center for Courts and Media at the University of Nevada, Reno.
(Excerpt) Read more at standardspeaker.com ...
One-Year-Old Dies after Being Assaulted by Mother's Boyfriend
By Renie Workman
5:12 PM EDT, May 31, 2009
Investigators said one-year-old Zalayia McCloe has died after being severely assaulted by her mother's boyfriend in Wilkes-Barre.
Luzerne County District Attorney Jackie Musto Carroll said the little girl died Sunday morning at Geisinger Medical Center near Danville.
http://www.wnep.com/wnep-wb-assault,0,1078226,print.story
http://citizensvoice.com/news/families-experience-shock-relief-in-bizarre-afternoon-1.1090711
Basically, judges are getting pissed that it’s getting harder for them to lie to juries about what the law is.
One more reason why Sheriff Putznik should have kept his mouth shut. His comments, and the aftermath, will live on in cyberspace forever.
What if she read a medical book? Seems that’s all she did here.
Facts of reality have no place in a courtroom.
In court, the “truth” is ONLY what you can convince a judge or jury to believe.
Not sure its the law the judge wants people ignorant about but rather evidence. Something gets suppressed thats crucial over a technicality and they’re afraid a juror will find out. They hate when people know all the facts.
The lawyers are pissed too because trials could start being about the facts and not the strategies and showmanship of the legal teams.
Didn’t even have to read the first post to KNOW it was the mother’s boyfriend accused of killing the child.
Stupid, STUPID women! Raise your kids FIRST, THEN you can get a new LOSER in your life...and start the process all over again!
Man, this situtaion annoys me to NO end. Grrrrrr!
Jurors can’t be detectives. They might listen to only one side of the story and that can’t influence their judgments - they have to listen to both sides in court and make a decision strictly on the basis of the evidence before them.
As a juror you should have the right to as much inofrmation as you require to render a judgement on another human being.
If a trial is “the search for the truth” then that would be the case. Trials have never been about the search for the truth.......
Juries are notoriously comprised of dolts and clods, especially selected by opposing attorneys. Every effort is made to exclude anyone with strong beliefs or anyone who is well educated. Community business leaders are particularly verboten.
It was a missile, I tell ya. It was a missile.
Slimeball beats a baby to death hitting so hard retina is detached. Electric chair.
No hitting. Period. End of discussion.
So if that "evidence" has been carefully filtered by the lawyers so as to "influence their judgement",that's OK? Too often critical evidence is suppressed by clever legal maneuvering and a system that favors criminals over victims. Jurors should be informed of ALL facts in a case.
You can bet that were I on a jury, I'd Google to see what was being concealed from me.
Bingo! I was called for jury duty on a major drug bust case.
I didn't realize when asked if I had any prior knowledge of the case before being picked for the jury, that I really did.
Once the trial got underway, I realized that it was the exact same case that my neighbor had been on that resulted in a hung jury. I had knowledge of all the real evidence in the case that was thrown out on phony technicalities.
I was about to alert the judge of my mistake, when the entire freaking case was thrown out because the last tiny shred of evidence was thrown out!
Is that written into the Constitution? Is a juror supposed to throw out all their own personal knowledge on a subject and just accept the testimony of experts at face value? What if the juror was a doctor or an expert in the forensic field in question? Is he then prohibited from bringing that expertise into the jury deliberations? Are jurors just supposed to be ignorant dolts? Can only an ignorant dolt make a fair decision?
The fact of the matter is that no doubt two "expert" witnesses came into the courtroom and one of them probably lied or stretched the truth. Is a juror then prohibited by the Constitution from then doing a bit of their own research to figure out which expert was a bald faced liar?
Jurors make all kinds of promises not to do this kind of stuff, but the fact is that they do. They talk about it with their family. They read the newspapers and then lie about it when asked. The jury system, like the internal revenue code, makes liars out of everyone.
AMEN!!!
No, it's getting harder for judges to insure that juries are not influenced by inadmissable evidence. How you feel if you were one of the Duke defendants and the case had gone to trial and you knew the jurors were googling the New York Times' and Rayleigh Observor's coverage of the case?
I was in a jury pool one time the Defense counsel was being a real Richard weed. anyone with an IQ over 65 he was disqualifying. when it came my turn to be questioned I asked him if he was going to DQ me because I had a Masters degree, carried a legal firearm, or was Catholic? He got seriously POed and asked the Judge to hold me in contempt. Judge said the only thing being held in contempt was his attitude.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.