Showing posts with label Juries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Juries. Show all posts

Thursday, April 26, 2012

"CourtBerry Syndrome" and Why Some Jurors Can't Resist Tweeting

Trial judges routinely warn jurors to avoid  using social media and the internet to research or comment on matters before the court during trials.  Nonetheless, news reports of jurors who disregard these instructions seem to be increasingly frequent.

Such juror misconduct has potentially disastrous consequences for the administration of justice.  A December 2011 Arkansas appeal provides a ready illustration - see Death row inmate gets second trial due to Twitter-obsessed juror:
In a tweet referencing the trial, Franco wrote ”Choices to be made. Hearts to be broken…We each define the great line.” He also posted updates when each day of the trial started and complained about the coffee. In addition, Franco posted “It’s over” less than an hour before the jury’s verdict was read in court. According to Associate Justice Donald Corbin, Franco was warned during the trial that posting updates to Twitter was forbidden. Corbin stated ”More troubling is the fact that after being questioned about whether he had tweeted during the trial, Juror 2 continued to tweet during the trial.” The Supreme Court justices of Arkansas recently asked a panel to look into restricting the use of smartphones during future trials.
Villanova law professor, Louis J. Sirico, Jr,. offers a generational analysis at Legal Skills Prof Blog as to why some jurors seem unable to resist tweeting and googling during trials:
In November 2008, the Lord Chief Justice of Great Britain, Sir Igor Judge, sounded a warning about the generational shift occurring as web-savvy citizens accustomed to getting their information online entered the jury box. Noting the consequences of this shift for the system of trial by jury, the Lord Chief Justice observed, “If a generation is going to arrive in the jury box that is totally unused to sitting and listening but is using technology to gain the information it needs to form a judgment, that changes the whole orality tradition with which we are familiar.
If our brains are, indeed being rewired by the internet, as early clinical research seems to suggest, is compulsive juror mistweeting simply the cutting edge of a genuine change in our physiology that is naturally finding its way into our courtrooms?

Is crackberry syndrome mutating into courtberry syndrome?

And how can our courts address this?  

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Prutschi on Jurors and Facebook

Slaw's Edward Prutschi, on the increasing prevalence of Facebook abuse by jurors around the globe:
Now I’ve felt somewhat humbled by having to make life-altering submissions before a panel of twelve of my client’s peers, but pleading my case to the entire internet? That’s an audience that could overwhelm even the savviest advocate.
Nicely said.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

Monday, March 22, 2010

Opening and Closing Statements in Ontario Civil Jury Trials

The Ontario Court of Appeal has concisely restated many of the key "rules of the road" on lawyers' civil jury addresses in a new decision, Fiddler v. Chiavetti, 2010 ONCA 210, released March 19, 2010.

Also of note, the decision establishes that the current cap on damages awards under Ontario's Family Law Act for loss of care, companionship and guidance is $125,000.00.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Criminal Justice

Two articles have come to my attention that address issues facing Canada's criminal justice system that we don't often hear about.

In Jury duty: Emotions on trial, the Edmonton Journal canvasses whether our jury gag-laws have outlived their usefulness:

Unlike the U.S., where juries are often interviewed at length about what went on in the jury room, it is a criminal code offence in Canada for juries to talk about deliberations. To anyone. Ever.

[Law professor Sanjeev] Anand calls the secrecy rule antiquated and says even the Supreme Court of Canada has alluded to it as "draconian" in nature.

"I think the law needs to be repealed, quite frankly," he says. "We should know what jurors are thinking; it's only in this way we can make the trial process better."

The Toronto Star considers the problem of witness intimidation and "codes of silence" that hamper police investigations. See Police hampered by code of silence:

A family's willingness to protect a gunman by not contacting police underlined "a growing epidemic in our community" where a "code of silence" is allowing "people to kill without fear of arrest," a judge in Scarborough said last June.

...Police have been lobbying Ottawa to make legislative changes "to allow for deferred or delayed disclosure of witness information so we can provide better protection and better support for people who have the courage to come forward."

Both stories are worth a look.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE