Miscarriage of Justice or Mistrials in the Modern Legal Systems - Essay Example

?MODULE PROCEDURE Miscarriage of justice or mistrials have increasingly become common in the modern legal systems. This has been attributed to the misuse of the internet by the jurors. Access to less credible internet information sources about cases is a problem in the justice system which requires immediate attention. After the jury has reported to the courtroom, they are not allowed to get or give information to anyone who is not part of the jury otherwise the court would end up with a mistrial. It is within the courtroom that they decide the facts of the case only without impartiality. It is also contempt of court for a jury member to ask for opinions and views on case from a person who is not part of the jury. However, in order to determine the facts and background information of the case in question, some jurors have gone ahead and fetched information from the internet. It is highly unlikely that the information available on the internet is reliable.1 A good percentage of the information on the internet is either exaggerated or false. Hardly do you find substantial facts on a case on the internet and it is illegal to use it for legal reasons. Basically it is the obligation of jurors to base their verdict only on the facts presented at the courtroom and not outside. It is also against the rules of a just deliberation to use the internet as a source of information to back up a case. Jury deliberation is where the jury, after a court proceeding thoughtfully, exits the courtroom to the deliberation room, listens and considers both sides of a case or a trial in order to reach a just verdict. Here, they share and exchange elements of a case that has just been presented before them with utmost fairness, analyze them and settle on a common decision. Usually, the deliberation is facilitated by a fair, strong opinionated juror.2 Basically, this is where the jury spits out their interpretation or understanding of t he case, collectively analyze and test each other’s points without biasness or bullying in order to come up with a reasonable common verdict, usually within law. The deliberation usually set the basis for any judgment that will be passed. The jury is usually not allowed to hold any external consultation to come up with a verdict. The advancement in technology and easy access to the internet has enabled jurors to obtain information on cases and parties involved with ease. Internet research by jurors is not allowed in criminal and civil trials because it has been described as a cause of the increasing cases of mistrials in the modern law courts. 3Judges have a responsibility of instructing jurors to avoid doing internet search on the case at hand. Despite the instructions from judges, many jurors have not refrained from using the internet in getting extra information about a case in which they are involved or the people who are involved in the case. It is also important to note that jurors are instructed to refrain from sharing case information with the public but among themselves. However, the access to social networking and electronic media has caused jurors to share with other people about cases and as a result they obtain questionable information about the case which plays a role in their perceptions about those who are being tried. The restriction that the jurors are given in the access of the internet is however limited to that period when deliberations on the case has began. The misuse of the internet by jurors has become a serious problem within the justice system.4This is illustrated by the easy with which jurors can access obscure information on the individuals involved in cases through blogging or accessing information on Facebook or Twitter. These sites do not offer credible information because online community would post malicious or exaggerated information about individuals involved in case proceedings and thus make jurors to have a biased perception about a case. It has been revealed that jurors fall into the temptation of web search and which wastes long weeks of litigation on cases.5 This is so because jurors would ignore the decisions which are reached during deliberations and apply the information which they acquire through the web in making their opinion about a specific case. Technology has not made justice an easy ride. It is common find jurors searching for a certain defendant or plaintiff on their laptop, phones or iPads to find any extra information which would contribute to their verdict or opinion on a case. This is considered first class contempt of court because it tampers with any just deliberation of a case. Because of the seriousness of internet misuse by the jury, some judges have banned BlackBerry devises and smart phones in courthouses. This is to prevent sharing of information between the jury and the public which would influence their opinion about the case. The problem of internet misuse by jurors has been experienced in many justice systems with some jurors admitting that they had done an internet search on a case during the period of deliberations. The seriousness of the problem is further revealed by the fact that some courts have refused to declare cases as mistrial regardless of the jury misconduct and misuse of the internet.6 In this sense it is arguable that there lack of full cooperation among the stakeholders of the justice system on restricting internet misuse by jurors. This is attributed to lack of clear definition of what form of research is appropriate about a legal case. Moreover, the definition of the extent to which sharing of information about a case by the jury has been a point of contention and dispute. There are several reasons why the misuse of the internet by jurors is a serious problem within the legal systems. To start with, the information which jurors access on the internet may be incomplete. This means that the jurors in their desire to find more about a case from the web are likely to access only a single aspect of a situation or an individual. For example a person may be described on internet sources as previously being involved in a crime without further information to indicate that he was vindicated. In this case it is possible that if the same individual would be involved in another crime, the misuse of the internet by the jury would base their decisions on a past crime which that individual may not have committed. The internet has been used by the members of the jury to research about past crime history of the accused which makes them develop negative attitudes about those individuals which would influence their legal opinion. The web research about cases and the individuals involved often involve gathering information from non authoritative sources.7 These include online sources such as Wikipedia which rely on the contributions which are open to the general public. Jurors often get inquisitive about an individual whose case they are involved in and as a result decide to perform an online search about these people via search engines such as Google. The information gathered from various sites about the individual is often less authoritative given that the general public gives opinions on the internet about people and institutions which may not be true. This illustrates that many cases are at a risk of being mistrials where misleading information is used to define the opinions of the jurors about the case and thus the final verdict. This problem is serious because it leads to innocent people being sent to prison just because the jury was misinformed by information within online sources. Jurors who get inquisitive about a case they are to participate in explore on the internet with an aim of acquiring the legal aspects on the case. This would lead to a situation where there is misinterpretation of information about a case and thus change the point of view of the juror about a case.8 Jurors are not necessarily legal experts and thus their interpretation of a case should be based on the deliberations on court where lawyers and judges are present to give legal and professional points of view. Therefore, online search about legal issues which surround cases by inquisitive jurors may give them a misleading interpretation which would make them discuss a case from misinformed points of view.9 Therefore it is evident that the danger of misuse of the internet by jurors needs immediate remedy to save the legal system from misjudging suspects of crimes. The seriousness of the misuse of the internet by jurors is demonstrated by the mistrials of cases which involve capital punishment. These cases are of high magnitude and serious deliberations are required without any external influence on the jury. When the jury is influenced by images and messages on the internet, it is possible that individuals would be convicted to capital punishment when in real sense they would be innocent. Improved training on juries is an approach which can be used to alleviate the problem of internet misuse during periods of legal deliberations.10 The training of the juries includes giving them knowledge about online information in relation to how it would be misleading, incomplete and lacking credibility. Training of juries also includes giving them skills on how to avoid sharing information about the case with the public. Additionally, the jury can be trained on the ethical execution of their roles by avoiding information which would affect their opinion or judgment on an individual and the case in general. Through this training, professional conduct is expected from the jurors. The legal aspects which relate to court deliberations would involve the training of jurors. Moreover jurors would be trained on their role in the court process and the issues of jury privacy in addition to cases where their privacy would be infringed. However, it is notable that training of jurors has various setbacks regardless of the advantages which would be accrued from such training. Training the jurors is an effective approach in solving their tendency of misusing the internet because it is through training that the jurors will be aware of the lack of credibility in most of the internet sources. This would be the best approach of discouraging jurors from doing an internet search about a case that is in progress. As a result, the opinions of the jury on the case will not be biased towards the stereotyped information on the internet about individuals involved in the case or the whole court proceedings. Moreover, training will serve as a way of informing jurors on the role that they have to play in ensuring that the deliberations of court proceedings are free from external influence. This is through informing the jurors about issues related to the privacy of the jury.11 Furthermore, jury training is necessary because it will help the jurors to know the legal responsibilities which they carry by participating in a jury. As a result, infringement of the legal provisions such as prohibition of sharing case information with non jurors during deliberations will be avoided. Jury training even through it is an effective way of solving the problem of internet misuse by the jurors requires input of resources. An input of time and money is required for jury training. Moreover, trainers are required to train juries on various aspects of court proceedings including their role and the reason why they should avoid the misuse of internet to research on an ongoing case.12 These arguments illustrate that training juries is an inefficient approach to solving the problem of misuse of the internet by jurors. This is more so because some court proceedings take a short period of time to reach a verdict. This shows that there would be no sufficient time to train jurors. Furthermore, members of the jury are often selected from people who are assumed to be well trained about issues of court proceedings including their role as jurors. Arguments against training of jurors include the fact that there is no guarantee that training will make jurors less inquisitive in making online inquiries about a case they are part of.13 This point is illustrated by the fact that even the most informed and knowledgeable jurors have been involved in online research about cases which they are involved in. Appointing a court official to monitor jury deliberations is one of the strategies which could be employed by courts to ensure that jurors do not misuse the internet during court proceedings. Through an appointed court official, the jury would be monitored so that they do not search on the internet during the deliberation process. Moreover a court official will ensure that the jurors do not argue based on information which is based on what is researched on the internet. Moreover, a court official would ensure that jurors do not external influence by communication to persons outside the group of jurors. Most importantly, the presence of a court official among the jurors during deliberation would ensure that ethical and legal code of jury conduct is adhered to by the jurors so that the case could be decided based on the provisions of the legal system and the law in general. It is argued that appointment of a court official to monitor the deliberation process by the jury would infringe their privacy. 14As a result of this the participation of the jurors in the deliberations may be limited by the presence of the official who may seem to be intimidating to some members of the jury. Moreover, a court official may be involved in the jury deliberations by giving his or her opinion which means that there is a chance that the official would play a role which falls out of the mandated obligations. In this sense, it is true to say that the presence of a court official among deliberating members of the jury would have an influence on the direction of the case. Moreover, the attitudes which a court official develops against some criminals such as rapists may cause deliberate negligence where he or she is less strict on the use of the internet by the jurors. Policies on the use of electronic devices by jurors especially during court proceedings are effective ways of combating the problem of misuse of the internet by the jury. This includes guidelines which regulate the use of the internet by the jury during course proceedings or deliberations. For these policies to effectively solve the problem, they must be enforced by court officials such as judges. Policies on the use of electronic devices in court rooms include banning mobile phones in court rooms. Moreover, jurors would be restricted by use of the internet during their deliberation. The provision of policies on the use of electronic devices in court rooms is effective because it will not allow jurors to communicate with individuals outside their group. Furthermore, the jury will be denied access to online information during court deliberations and hence enable them to make legal decisions which are not based on misinformation form web sources.15 It is argued that setting policies which prohibit the use of electronic devices in court rooms is not the solution to the problem of internet misuse by the jury. This is because restricting access to the internet cannot prohibit its use outside court rooms. This means that jurors would access the internet outside the courtroom and research on an individual or case which determines their opinion on the case. Moreover, restricting access to the internet is not a solution because the information which would be found on the internet is usually presented by the media. Therefore, the jury can also be influenced by the media and thus they do not require doing an internet search about the case. Furthermore, some cases take relatively long which means that the jurors have adequate time to do internet research on the case outside the courtrooms which is impossible to control. Every time a jury is selected, it is issued with routine jury instructions by the judge. The instructions are usually given at the end of a trial, but before deliberation. The instruction re he laws that apply f or the deliberation .One of the instructions is to keep their hands, ears and eyes off of the internet. The internet is a pool o f true and untrue information which might change the way a juror analyses a case, so they are advised to refrain from or that would be contempt of court which Is punishable by law. By giving these instructions, it helps them filter their misuse of the internet close to a minimal amount because most people are casual fellows who are afraid of going to jail for internet misuse like anyone else. So the law keeps them off internet misuse considering the penalty and the mistrials that come with it. On the hand, the vast use of the social networking with ease, some jurors may choose to ignore this major instruction and go ahead and try to get some elements of the trial from the internet. Giving instructions to a jury does not always guarantee one that they will abide by them. The force of technology, read as internet, is too irresistible for the current generation. Instructions, with most human beings, usually work with some special supervision. A selection procedure usually acts as a good a tool to get the best out of the best. In the case of jury selection ,special court officials set some rules and a procedures to filter out the pubic to get a jury that keeps off internet misuse.16 Changing the selection procedure in order to get jurors who have enough experience and wide knowledge and skills on a certain topic or case to keep them off the internet is an appropriate approach in solving the problem. It gives a juror little or no reason to go sniffing around the internet for extra elements for a given topic; she or he has more than enough information and knowledge on that specific case or trial. The selection procedure also change to one that can be able to came up with jurors to be, who have a clean record in being up to par with no history sourcing out their extra information from the internet and being independent thinkers who can abstain from the internet. In as much as changing to a better selection procedure for jurors can leave out flawed juror to be, it can also bring in a bad breed of internet sniffers. This probably can lead to a major judicial system breach. The internet has become the basic way of communication .it is very common and easy to bump on the trial that one is going to be a juror on unintentionally .what catches definitely sticks to the mind and it pokes curiosity ,that translates to reading the report or information published on that very trial. It happens without thinking to get interested in what one is involved in. It is recommended that court rooms identifies and applies the most effective strategies of curbing the problem of jury misuse of the internet. This will prevent the possibility of a mistrial which results from jury opinions and court verdicts which are based on online information that is usually from less credible and non authoritative sources. Policies which regulate the use of electronic devices during court proceedings and jury deliberations must be implemented and enforced by the court officials. Even though the implementation of these policies will not cannot completely alleviate the problem but will reduce the possibility of a mistrial. Additionally, policies are recommended because they will mandate the members of the jury to adhere to these policies which would reduce the possibility of the misuse of the internet. It is also recommended that the selection of members of the jury followed the standardized procedures so that informed jurors are selected for a case. This will enable the court to select jurors who are aware of their legal obligations and their roles in the court proceedings. Moreover, through a thorough selection process the court will ensure that the members of the jury who are selected are aware that the internet as a source of information is not credible and thus should not be a basis for making decisions on a case.17 The selection process for jurors must involve professional court officials. This will ensure that the jury members who are selected for the case are neutral and not biased or swayed by the information from the media or the internet about individuals who are involved in a case or the whole process of court proceedings. Jurors to be should never make inquiries from the Internet as that is the backbone for any justice system. The trial judge, accused and state, plaintiff, defendant and the public believe in the fairness and effectiveness of the jury to strengthen and uphold the justice system by giving a just verdict. In most cases this means that if they make a mistake, the justice system weakens and the public looses confidence, hope and faith in it. Therefore, when jurors to be already have a template of what the facts of a trial might be from misusing the internet, the courtroom facts looses viability. It beats the purpose of them listening to witnesses in court proceedings. In conclusion, the problem of abuse of the internet by the jury is a serious concern within the legal system because online sources of information comprise of numerous sites which are not credible. As a result of the misuse of the internet by the jurors, their opinion on a case has been affected by shared information which would be misleading. This problem has challenged the legal system because it is attributed to the mistrials which are increasingly becoming common in modern courts. An appropriate jury selection criterion for the jurors is recommended over training of the jury because training may not guarantee that the jurors will abstain from misuse of the internet. Policies which regulate the use of mobile devices within court rooms are also recommended because they will reduce the incidences of misuse of the internet by the jurors. Other remedial approaches for the problem of internet misuse by the jury include giving instructions to the jury by the court officials which will mandate them to avoid the use of internet as the basis of their argument in court proceedings. References Bell, D, ‘Juror Misconduct and the Internet’, American Journal of Criminal Law, 38(1), 2010, pp. 81-99. Boldon, R, “Long-Arm Statutes and Internet Jurisdiction, Business Lawyer, 67(1), 2011, pp. 313-320. Brenner, S. W, Internet Law In the Courts, Journal of Internet Law, 13(9), 2010, pp. 30-34 Brown, E, ‘Internet Law In the Courts’, Journal of Internet Law, 15(1), 2011, 28-31. Curwen, P, ‘iPhone but the jury is out’, Info, 9(6), 2007, pp. 71-73. Daftary-Kapur, T., ‘Jury decision-making biases and methods to counter them’, Legal & Criminological Psychology, 15(1), 2010, pp. 133-154 DeLeon, T. R., & Forteza, J. S, ‘Is Your Jury Panel Googling during Trial?’ Computer & Internet Lawyer, 28(3), 2011, pp. 1-4. Diamond, S, ‘Truth, Justice, and the Jury’, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 26(1), 2003, pp. 143. Dunn, M. A., ‘The Jury Persuaded (and Not): Computer Animation in the Courtroom’, Law & Policy, 28(2), 2006, pp. 228-248 Hunt, C, ‘Contempt of Court and the Internet’, Cambridge Law Journal, 71(1), 2012, pp. 24-27 King, G, ‘Exploring public perspectives on e-health: findings from two citizen juries’, Health Expectations, 14(4), 2011, pp. 351-360. Murdoch, C, ‘The Oath and the Internet’, Criminal Law & Justice Weekly, 2012, p. 149. Pattenden, R, ‘Pre-verdict Judicial Fact-finding in Criminal Trials with Juries, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 29(1), 2009, pp. 1-24 Relyea, H. C, ‘Information Policy’, Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(1), 2001, pp. 36. Robinson, E, ‘Criminal Libel and the Internet’, Journal of Internet Law, 15(4), 2011, pp. 1-19. Sherman, M, ‘The Anatomy of A Trial with Social Media and the Internet’, Journal Of Internet Law, 14(11), 2011, p. 1-14. Zabel, M. L, ‘Advisory Juries and Their Use and Misuse in Federal Tort Claims Act Cases’, Brigham Young University Law Review, 2003, pp, 185 Read More