Twitter as Grounds for Mistrial?

On the front page of today's New York Times a story appeared that raises questions about our generation and problems we face due to new technology. The article details an increasing problem around the country: jurors and internet access. While the internet is certainly not new technology, accessing the internet at all times is easier than ever before. Judges in various cases have found that jurors are accessing the internet to find out information that would otherwise be excluded from the official proceedings. Jurors have admitted to doing outside research on the specifics of the cases, the parties involved, the attorneys representing them and other related topics, with a simple search of the internet on their cell phones. This is an obvious violation of the rules which specify that jurors are not supposed to be influenced by information not presented at trial. This means that jurors are inadvertently providing grounds to set aside their decisions by declaring a mistrial. Outside research is not the only action being considered grounds for mistrial: Twitter and Facebook updates caused a request for mistrial in the federal corruption trial of a former Pennsylvania state Senator. One Arkansas Court is being asked to set aside a $12.6 million judgment due to one juror's Twitter updates throughout the course of the trial. The article even mentions that attorneys have begun checking websites and blogs of potential jurors as a part of the jury selection process.

The questions we should be asking ourselves as a society are whether or not this is an acceptable practice, and how feasible rules regarding internet access actually will be. On one hand, if you believe that jurors should be completely isolated from internet access throughout the course of a trial, how will the Courts enforce this rule. Should cell phones be confiscated? What penalties will be incurred if a juror refuses to give up their cell phone, or simply lies about having one? On the other hand, if the Courts do nothing, how biased will decisions be based upon information received via the internet? If we know that jurors are making decisions based on what they're reading on the internet, a whole new set of questions arise. How can we be sure that all jurors are obtaining their facts from credible outside sources? Is the outside information biased? Does it include references to evidence or events strictly forbidden from being presented in the proceedings?

It becomes quite clear that the allowance of such blatant disregard for the rules regarding juries will completely compromise the judicial system. While it is understandable that jurors think they are making more informed decisions by doing their own research, they do not seem to realize that they are undermining the rules of evidence that have been relied upon for generations. That being said, the internet is more available than ever before and the technology is not going away. The legal system will have to adjust, but jurors may also have to redefine their civic responsibility to include giving up the internet for the length of their service.