A jury trial is a taxing experience for everyone concerned. Almost all of the court's resources are dedicated to a single matter, especially in small jurisdictions where justice is dispensed by a judge, a secretary, a court reporter and a bailiff. Lawyers for each side, who have already invested hundreds of hours of pretrial effort, devote all their time to the case, from sun-up to sundown, for as long as the trial lasts. And then there are the jurors, who put aside their jobs and family obligations in order to hear evidence and reach a decision on a matter they have no prior training or experience in. It is an exhausting effort all around.
Sometimes these sacrifices are utterly wasted, as they were in a 2007 personal injury case against a seatbelt manufacturer in Rapid City, S.D. (population 60,000 and birthplace of noted cyberlaw thinker Lawrence Lessig, according to Wikipedia). The case was tried for 19 days, eventually leading to a verdict in favor of the manufacturer. Unfortunately, the verdict was overturned when it came to light after the trial that one of the jurors had performed Google searches on the seatbelt manufacturer after he received his jury summons in the mail. This particular juror did not disclose his googling to the attorneys when they asked him, before the trial commenced, in a general sort of way, whether he had any prior knowledge about the case or the parties that would affect his impartiality. This particular juror subsequently compounded his subversion of the judicial process by revealing the outcome of his Google research to several other jurors during jury deliberations.
The trial judge granted the injury victim's request for a new trial due to the juror's misconduct and due to the fact that the jury was exposed to extrinsic evidence during deliberations. A few days ago, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the trial judge, in Russo v. Takata Corp., No. 2009 S.D. 83 (S.D., Sept. 16, 2009). "Today we announce no hard and fast rule that all such types of internet research by a juror prior to trial without notice to the court and counsel automatically doom a jury's verdict," the court wrote. Nevertheless, it said, the trial judge's conclusion that a new trial was necessary was not an abuse of discretion.
It seems to me that the good people of Rapid City should immediately stop telling prospective jurors the names of the parties involved in the cases they might be asked to decide. Most jurisdictions don't divulge this information; and now Rapid City has learned an expensive lesson why not. It also seems to me that attorneys should voir dire prospective jurors specifically about their online activities. The internet, Google, Facebook (this juror is on Facebook if you want to friend him) et al are the very first places people go for information. Most folks think that information on the Internet is very reliable, though they won't admit it; certainly they think the Internet is more reliable than the courtroom assertions of legal counsel. I don't think the Internet was much on the legal system's radar screen in Rapid City, S.D. I bet it is now.
...and the good people of Rapid City who don't want to serve on juries should research the heck out of a case before showing up, and make sure to mention their research during voir dire.
Posted by: MK | September 18, 2009 at 04:34 PM