Impact of New Media on Conduct of Judges and Juries - Dissertation Example

Impact of new media on conduct of judges and juries The internet provides content that is available through digital devices such as Smartphones, tablets and computers. This content usually has a high demand among internet users who visits websites that host online newspapers, video games, social media such as Twitter and Facebook, and even video games. It is this content that constitutes new media. New media is usually interactive in nature and users engage in dialogue; enabling them to comment on a host of issues from whatever part of the globe they occur (Cole & Dioso-Villa, 2007). As such new media is used mainly by those intending to interact with other people. This assignment will look at the impact of new media on the conduct of judges and juries in relation to a public lecture by the Chief justice of the Victorian Supreme Court, Marilyn Warren, on Open justice in the technological age (Warren, 2013). Juries play a fundamental role in allowing for a participation in the criminal justice process that is all inclusive and reflective of the values found I the community (Robbers, 2008). As such, juries are made up of people gotten from the community and who determine the outcome of a trial. They are to reach decisions basing on the information obtained from court proceedings. This is done with full respect of the law and also in accordance to instructions given to them by the judges overseeing the trials. Information they obtain during court proceedings which in law sums up as evidence is not supposed to be communicated to members outside the jury (Harlow, 2012). They are required to make their deliberations among themselves and not include members of the public including friends and relatives as doing so would compromise on their impartiality if not objectivity. In addition, they are not supposed to have preconceived opinions pertaining to the defendant such as whether he is guilty or not and only use the rule of law to arrive at their decisions. The introduction of new media especially one that is associated with internet is threatening to undermine the workings of juries (Surette, 2014). This is because it posses the challenge on need to observe the right of the public to be given information pertain to their justice system and that of the accused to be subjected to a trial perceived to be fair by all standards. This challenge has caused some juries to be in new headlines for all the wrong reasons. Jurors are now getting used to accessing information that is fast passed as they constantly receive emails, Facebook and twitter posts that influences their way of thinking especially with reference to active cases (Robbers, 2008). Here, jurors are less confident about their collective deliberation pertaining to the cases and are usually tempted to seek opinions from outside the jury. They usually contact community members so as to be able to arrive at decisions that are seen to be in line with community values and ways of life. New media has been known to lead to challenge of outcome of court cases after the jury was found to have used the internet during court proceedings. Thompson-Reuters during a review of court opinions between 1998 and 2010 reported that due to jury misconduct relating to use of internet, close to ninety verdicts had been challenged (Surette, 2014). Half of those verdicts were in cases whose proceedings took place between years 2008 to 2010, a period associated with the internet boom. In some instances, verdicts had been quashed and new trials ordered (Harlow, 2012). Information on new media and especially from social media is usually diverse if not prejudiced as people are either for or against the defendant. Relying on such information for deliberations puts the jury at crossroads with the governing law as the whole judicial process is usually compromised. Due to this, some judges warn jurors prior to the commencement of the trial that information obtained from new media through internet sources would not serve as evidence and hence should not have a bearing on their deliberations. Others ban the use of electronic gadgets in the courtroom and even take away from the jurors these gadgets in order to limit their contact with the outside world (Fox, Van Sickle & Steiger, 2001). The new media clearly has an appeal that at times proves to be too much to the jury. This is because majority of people in this day and age tend to have access to cell phones and other communication gadgets that are potable and can easily be carried into the courtroom. Access of these gadgets makes it easy for jury members to browse on the internet for things that they do not know about the case or simply want to get opinion from friends, family and the public as a whole (Robbers, 2008). New media is a source of all sorts of information as people post whatever they feel like without any inhibition. Some members of the jury do this with the desire of wanting to make decisions that the rest of the community will relate with as they would have contributed to their deliberations while others simply want to stir debate or have people talks about the case (Robbers, 2008). Viewing an online posting about an ongoing case for example whereby someone has posted about the accused having been involved in a prior hit and run accident will surely have a bearing on the though process of the juror during the current case (Cole & Dioso-Villa, 2007). Jurors have been known to use the internet search engines to do their own research on trials that they are involved in. This according to the UK Attorney-General is what is referred to as Trial by Google (Harlow, 2012). This creates detective jurors who spend hours researching on active cases and at times come into comments or articles that are prejudiced and are either in favour or out of favour with the accused. Here the juror gets perspectives of the case that he wouldn’t have acquired on his own which in the process affects his impartiality on the case. In 2011 the High Court in London sentenced a juror by the name Joanne Fraill to eight months in prison in what happens to be a classic example of Trial by Google. This is after she was found to have exchanged Facebook messages with the accused person. In addition, she also used the internet to research on another defendant. She did this while the jury was till deliberating on the outcome of the case. Since she and other jurors had been warned not to do so prior to the commencement of the court proceedings, she was found to be in contempt of court and hence the sentence. Other jurors have been found to comment about ongoing cases through social media such as Twitter or Facebook. In addition, they make friends with others jurors with the intention of influencing the outcome of the cases (Tyler, 2006). Such conduct is usually punished as is the case of a juror in the UK who urged her friends on Facebook to help her arrive at a verdict pertaining to a case in which a defendant was accused of abducting and sexually abusing a child. The juror was dismissed from jury duties as she was seen to contravene set rules and regulations pertaining to a free trial. At times, the whole jury is usually dismissed and a new one constituted. Such is the case when in 2010 a Victorian Judge reprimanded and later called on the police when a juror appointed to a murder case reported about his posting on through a Facebook posting (Charmaz, 2011). The situation is usually worse when it comes to capital cases. This is because such cases are usually full of emotions and receive much media coverage especially the new media. Jurors appointed in such cases usually obtain a publicity status and are likely to be impartial during court proceedings (Keyzer, Johnston, Holland & Pearson, 2013). In 2012, in a report contained in ABC 30 TV, Chris Washington’s second degree murder case was declared a mistrial after the jury involved itself in misconduct pertaining to use of internet (Keyzer et al, 2013). This happened after a deputy Sherriff tasked with cleaning the room which the jury had used to deliberate on the case came across material printed from the internet (Keyzer et al, 2013). This was a clear indication that the jury had used internet to research on the case. The material found was on the differences between second degree murder and manslaughter. The judge had to declare a mistrial and remind jurors not to visit the internet during trials as this would not only have a bearing on their impartiality but impact on the fairness of the trial. At times, photos of jury have been circulated on new media mainly social networks such as Facebook and Twitter. This is done by jury members who at times want to achieve a celebrity status. The Michigan Live reported in 2012 that photos of the jury appeared on a Facebook page during the trial of Michael Philips pertaining to the case whereby his daughter had disappeared prompting Richard Cooper, the Mason County judge to ban carrying of cameras and cell phones into the courtroom (Keyzer, Johnston, Holland & Pearson, 2013). This prompted one of the jurors to ask for excusal as the case was of high profile and the exposure of the photos created unwanted attention on his part. Another juror in the United States was found to have researched the meaning of the word sponsor from the Wikipedia, leading to the reversal of a conviction. The happened in the year 2012 during the trial of Lawson and other defendants in which they were sent to prison for going against the federal animal fighting statute that prohibited people from exhibiting or sponsoring with full knowledge an animal in fights. The discovery that the juror had used the internet prompted the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to intervene and reverse the conviction (Tyler, 2006). Not only had the juror researched on the meaning of the word sponsor but had also brought a printout from the Wikipedia into the room where the rest of the jury was conducting their deliberations. It was established that the use of Wikipedia definition could have influenced the way the jury arrived at their decision to convict and hence deny the defendants a fair trial. The argument was that the meaning of the term sponsor could be changed at any time by the numerous Wikipedia editors to suite the prevailing circumstances and hence influences the outcome of jury deliberations (Charmaz, 2011). The matters were made worse by the three page long explanation of the term which suggested that it had been altered to suit the ongoing trial. In other cases the jury relies on the new media for analyzed information instead on the evidence presented before the court which they consider to be complicated. On the internet, one can easily find explanations about issues such as figures, experiments pertaining to a case in question or one that is similar (Harlow, 2012). Instead of having to discuss among themselves juries tend to use this ‘simple to understand’ information that they found on the internet at the expense of available evidence. This information at times is usually incorrect or full of errors making it unreliable. This jury conduct usually means that the outcome of the case can be questioned before any qualified judge (Warren, 2013). It is not only juries whose conduct is affected by new media. Judges are also known to use new media have access to internet through social sites such as Facebook, Twitter among others. They are also subjected to the celebrity status associated with high profile cases and are often discussed on the new media (Tyler, 2006). Many websites write stories on them and social users discuss them if not have photos of them and even family members. In addition, some are not spared the emotions attached to such cases especially those that grab global headlines. Most times the accused is subjected to media trials that weigh heavily on judges as some new media users clearly urge the judges to issues verdicts in favour or out of favour with the accused. This clearly affects the conduct of judges which impacts on cases that they are to rule on. Judges are known to be open to the new media just like other people in this era of new media boom. Despite their oath and training, they at times put into mind the comments contained in the social media. They let public opinion sway their way of thinking which in legal terms is against the rule of law (Warren, 2013). As such they issue sentences that reflect the opinions of the public. This is usually the cases that involve people with celebrity statuses. Though public opinion should be regarded as laws exist in a community governed by rules and regulations, over reliance on the public through new media puts the integrity of the entire judicial system in question As discussed in the case of juries, judges have been known to reverse convictions or even declare mistrials in cases where new media in the form of social networks such as Facebook has been known to interfere with the case. Here judges have argued that research on the internet by court staff especially the jury has led to lack of impartiality and hence led to trials perceived to be unfair (Robbennolt & Studebaker, 2003). As such, judges have in the recent past been declaring mistrials or reversed convictions irrespective of other available evidence just because they cited interference from the new media. This conduct has put into question their impartiality and objectivity as they are seen to stand in the way of justice especially by those having divergent opinions on the matter (Keyzer, Johnston, Holland & Pearson, 2013). In New Delhi India, it was argued that the airing of a documentary related to a gang rape case would affect the conduct of the presiding judges (Rodrick, 2014). This is because media trials whereby the documentary would be available on the internet would affect the subconscious of the judges and in turn pressurize them into arriving at a sentence that would be biased. A bench put up to deliberate on the airing of the documentary was of the feeling that the documentary would put pressure on the judges and hence interfere with the judicial system (Charmaz, 2011). This is because the high profile case had attracted global attention and majority of people especially in India wanted the accused to be convicted irrespective of getting to know about the available evidence. New media has at times led to judges conducting entire court proceedings away from the public (Tyler, 2006). This has mainly happened in cases that have attracted much publicity. Judges have imposed gag orders, restricted media access to court rooms and even confiscated from the jury communication gadgets such as cell phones and cameras (Shelton, Kim & Barak, 2006). This is in a bid to ensure the trial remain fair for both the defendant and accuser. Though they stand accused, the defendants do have constitutional rights that must be protected. They simply cannot be subjected to new media trial whereby issues of whether they are guilty or not or even evidence for or against them is available on social networks or internet (Charmaz, 2011). Judges therefore go to extra lengths to ensure that their rights are protected even though it means conducting themselves in a manner seen to hide from the public what is going inside the courtroom. The same happens when witnesses need to be protected as exposing a witness on new media or even their family members clearly compromises on their security. In the United States, judges of the Supreme Court have overturned convictions in circumstances whereby media including new media has had an influence in their determination. Judges have also transferred cases from locations whereby the jury is perceived to be prejudiced at the request of the defendant (Tyler, 2006). This has been done in bid to ensure that the trials are fair and would result to just convictions. Judges have been known to get influenced by new media when it comes to sentencing. This happens when the case involves an accused with a history of crime. In the new media, information may be found that pertains to the accused that gives details about prior convictions. This discovery and the pressure emanating from other new media users such as those twitting or posting on Facebook details regarding the case may influence the judge to rule in a particular way. With relation to the above, judges tend to receive criticism from rights group, interest groups, religious groups or individual persons especially if they ruled in a manner considered to be unpopular sometime back in a case resembling the one in contention (Charmaz, 2011). Such displeasure may be expressed through new media and it is highly likely that judges will get twitter messages or even Facebook posts that criticize them or even urge them to make their ruling basing on a certain criteria. Some judges may find themselves overwhelmed by such criticism which may in turn have an impact in their judgment. In conclusion, judges sometimes ignore details obtained from court proceedings and instead focus on information obtained from social media. This is because in new media, information is usually analyzed making it easy to comprehend. They thus make their judgment based on this which is usually at times inaccurate or even biased. It is thus crucial that the judiciary adopts modern communication techniques that involve use of the new media. This is because we are in a changing world and people expect it to engage in direct dialogue with the community which is facilitated by new media. However by doing so the judiciary needs to ensure that it maintains fairness and impartiality in the judiciary. Bibliography: COLE, S. A., & DIOSO-VILLA, R. (2007). CSI and its Effects: Media, Juries, and the Burden of Proof. New England Law Review, 41(3). CHARMAZ, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 4, 359-380. FOX, R. L., VAN SICKEL, R. W., & STEIGER, T. L. (2001). Tabloid justice: Criminal justice in an age of media frenzy (p. 79). L. Rienner. HARLOW, S. (2012). Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justice movement that moved offline. New Media & Society, 14(2), 225-243. KEYZER, P., JOHNSTON, J., HOLLAND, G., & PEARSON, M. R. (2013). Juries and Social Media, Centre for Law, Governance and Public Policy, a report commissioned by the Victorian Department of Justice on behalf of the Standing Council on Law and Justice, 16 April 2013,[1.2]. Retrieved August, 25. ROBBENNOLT, J. K., & STUDEBAKER, C. A. (2003). News media reporting on civil litigation and its influence on civil justice decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 27(1), 5. ROBBERS, M. L. (2008). Blinded by Science The Social Construction of Reality in Forensic Television Shows and its Effect on Criminal Jury Trials. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(1), 84-102. RODRICK, S. (2014). Achieving the aims of open justice?: The relationship between the courts, the media and the public. Deakin Law Review, 19(1), 123. SHELTON, D. E., KIM, Y. S., & BARAK, G. (2006). A Study of Juror Expectations and Demands Concerning Scientific Evidence: Does theCSI EffectExist?. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 9, 330. SURETTE, R. (2014). Media, crime, and criminal justice. Cengage Learning. TYLER, T. R. (2006). Viewing CSI and the threshold of guilt: Managing truth and justice in reality and fiction. The Yale Law Journal, 1050-1085. WARREN, M. (2013) Open justice in the technological age. Read More