Juror fined $11,227 after googling ICE officer's peculiar uniform patch

boing
124

Yes, jurors walk in knowing facts. I am not saying that jurors should be blank slates. I am saying that one individual juror should not introduce new facts to other jurors.

The reason is quite simply that a juror could just as easily introduce false or incorrect information to other jurors and this would go unchallenged. The crux of what I am saying is: what’s to stop a juror from saying, “Oh yeah, I know that patch. That’s definitely a Boy Scout merit badge. I would know; I was in the scouts.” In this particular case, the juror’s information happened to be correct and the prosecution’s incorrect. What if it’s not? What if it’s the other way around? As a general rule, which is fair? Information that can be challenged by the other side, or not?

The defense had seen that photo in advance and had every opportunity to research and show that it was otherwise. When a juror introduces new information to other jurors, that can’t happen.

ETA: I believe that the conversation took a bizarre turn because I was not picking up on your sarcasm. I apologize for that, but it is very difficult to pick up on sarcasm in this kind of forum.

125

So, for example, if the jury is considering a serious accident, and one juror knows the intersection where the accident took place. The prosecution says, “There are clear lines of sight in all directions at this intersection.” But the juror knows that intersection; they drive through it every day. During deliberations, they say, “this prosecutor is full of shit. There’s a big tree at one corner of this intersection and it blocks vision of the northbound lanes.”

Should that juror get hit with a 5-figure fine? Hell no.

4 Likes
126

It absolutely behooves the juror then to bring that to the court’s attention and not discuss that among other jurors behind closed doors where it will not become a part of the court record. It may result in a mistrial but it is the right thing to do. The juror might be mistaken. The juror might be lying. If it is not part of the court record, then we will never know.

What if a jury votes to convict based on critical facts that one juror gave to others? How do we know that the facts given by that juror were correct? How can the defense then appeal the verdict without knowing what facts the jury had? These rules exist for a reason.

127

How should a juror bring that to the court’s attention? I mean, we could ask written questions through the bailiff when I was a juror. If the prosecutor doubled-down on the lie? What then?Especially if the defense attorney was not very good; maybe an overworked PD?

Personally, I couldn’t let that stand. It would be morally wrong for me to withhold critical information that could make the difference in someone going to prison or not, even if it meant I risked my own money or freedom.

7 Likes
128

If a juror makes it clear that he/she believes that the prosecution is lying or utterly incorrect about something, then that’s a mistrial. And that’s okay. I mean, it’s not okay that the prosecutor gave wrong or false information in the first place, but it’s okay that the trial ends in a mistrial in that case. In the next trial, with a fresh jury, the defense will be aware of the falsehood that the prosecution stated and will be able to address it in open court.

If it is found that the prosecutor did knowingly provide false information, then there are sanctions that can be taken against the prosecutor (including contempt of court), which is another thing that cannot happen if the information is not part of the court record.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about this! The only difference is that I am stressing that it is essential that all of this become a part of the court record. Jury deliberations do not become a part of the court record. If you gave the bailiff a note with your concerns, then it would and appropriate action could be taken by the court. ETA: Of course, appropriate action by the court is not guaranteed…but it cannot happen if there is pertinent information floating around that the court is not aware of.

129

How? What’s the mechanism? @Scientist related that their experience with being a juror did not include the ability to ask questions. @deltaecho protested that it would be illegal (maybe unconstitutional?) to have the jury ask questions. So how does it enter the court record? How does it lead to a mistrial if the jury, one person or all of them, know that a the prosecution (or defense) is lying, but don’t have a mechanism to enter it into the record?

5 Likes
130

I think you are simply outright wrong about this. I can’t imagine how the system you are proposing would work. Jurors must be able to apply knowledge they have before the trial starts to their deliberations.

3 Likes
131

This is not the same as the jury asking questions. If the juror has a concern that renders him or her unable to judge the case based on what has been presented (such as a loss of trust in the prosecution or defense counsel), then the juror has a duty to inform the court of this concern. There is no default way to do that, but a juror should be able to communicate this concern to the judge (possibly via a bailiff).

It is the same as if a juror received a phone call from somebody saying, “Vote not guilty or your wife will be sleeping with the fishes.” That is new, pertinent information that exists outside of the court record and that the court needs to know about. The juror should not keep that to himself or herself, but neither should the juror share that information with other jurors without alerting the court.

132

I think that there is just a fundamental difference between you and I concerning the nature of knowledge here. When you say knowledge, you seem to be saying, “Something that is true and that the juror knows is true.” When I say knowledge, I am saying, “Something that the juror believes to be true, regardless of whether it is in fact true.” I am saying that whether somebody knows something to be true is not the same as whether it is true, and without external, objective verification, there is no way of knowing if the truth that a person believes is actually true or not.

Since we are getting into tricky matters of epistemology here, I suggest we just agree to disagree here.

133

What if they never had any to begin with? I mean, most people who have actually dealt with lawyers have lost trust in lawyers.

1 Like
134

Not having trust in lawyers in general is not the same as having a particularized mistrust of one of the counselors in an ongoing trial, especially when there was a modicum of trust at the beginning that has been lost as a result of information that the court is not privy to.

Why are you so opposed to the idea of bringing the matter to the court’s attention? If you feel so strongly about sharing the information with other jurors, why not send a note to the judge as well?

135

My point is that such knowledge and judgement is the very reason why a jury is convened in the first place. Saying that using such knowledge and judgement is grounds for a mistrial is against the very reason to convene a jury in the first place.

As for bringing it to the court’s attention: I would love to. Please review the posts I referred to. Having a mechanism to do so is not universal in the US. Whether courts in other place deny or hide the ability of jurors to do so, it nonetheless shows that they don’t want jurors to exercise their judgement or access their knowledge.

3 Likes
136

I’d be happy to discuss epistemology, but whether the juror is right or not is not the issue. You seem to think that I wouldn’t make the same point if I realized how wrong jurors could be. This is not the case. Juries are made of human beings who have flaws and make mistakes and that is part of the system. Convictions and acquittals occur because jurors are mistaken and that is absolutely part of the system as it exists now.

Jurors are asked to determine who they believe all the time. Take the murder of George Floyd as a recent very highly publicized trial. In that trial the prosecution called a witness saying that Floyd died because the knee of his neck asphyxiated him. The defense called a witness saying that Floyd died because of drug use and a pre-existing heart condition. Both of these witnesses had credentials as people who were capable of making such determinations and those credentials were offered to the jury.

So the jury went into deliberations with there two conflicting stories. If they believed one witness then they convict, if they believe the other then they acquit (or at least it’s easily believable that a conviction could hinge on this). The prosecution, in their closing statement, told the jury they were allowed to believe their eyes, that they saw what they saw. Lawyers commenting on the case said that this was hard for the defense because jurors had knees and jurors had necks, and odds are they are going to understand that you can asphyxiate someone by applying one to the other.

So I am quite sure, from recent precedent that a juror is 100% allowed to apply their knowledge (or their belief) about whether or not a person could asphyxiate in a given position to their deliberations in a murder trial. The prosecution told them so and the judge didn’t warn anyone, the defense didn’t object, there was no mistrial.

They can also apply their “knowledge” (that is, their prejudices) of human psychology in determining which expert witness was more “credible”. They can also apply their prejudices about different schools or other expert qualifications to determining which witness was more credible. And they can say to themselves, “The [prosecution or defense] just paid that guy to say that, I think it was complete bullshit!” and utterly disbelieve it. And I know that’s true because witnesses for the prosecution in that case volunteered to testify without being paid to make their testimony more credible.

Twelve people, with all of their flaws, make a determination. That’s the system.

Like, when you say that if a juror knew where a tree was they would have to alert the court to this forbidden outside knowledge, is that based on your knowledge of actual court procedure, or are you just saying how it seems to you? I can’t even imagine how such a system would work and how jurors would categorize knowledge and beliefs they were allowed to use vs. knowledge and beliefs they were not allowed to use (speaking of epistemological issues!).

7 Likes
137

And my point is that the knowledge and judgment of a jury is fallible, just as the knowledge and judgment of lawyers is fallible. If the knowledge of a juror conflicts with what has been presented in court, then the juror is doing the work of the prosecution or defense and presenting evidence or arguments, without giving the other side the benefit of an opportunity to offer counterevidence or counterarguments.

I have seen the posts that you mention. As I said, this is not the same as asking questions. This is raising concerns. I find it hard to believe that jurors are so sequestered that they have absolutely no way of contacting the court. If a juror has a medical or family emergency, then they are no longer able to serve on the jury…but they cannot communicate that fact to the court so they have to hold their tongues?

138

Yes, exactly. The prosecution called a witness. The defense called a witness. A juror did not stand up in the deliberation room and say, “Actually, I am an expert on both asphyxiation and pre-existing heart conditions and here is what really happened.”

Can you not see the difference between what happened in the Chauvin trial and what I am suggesting should not happen?

Yes! Exactly! From among the information presented by the prosecution and the defense, not based on what one of the jurors introduced behind closed doors. We are talking about two very different things here. There is a difference between a juror applying his or her own knowledge to make a judgment, and a juror standing up in front of the rest of the jury and playing prosecutor or defense attorney by introducing new information (they can of course advocate for whichever side they support based on the information that they have been given). That is all that I am trying to say here.

ETA: You asked if this is based on an understanding of actual practice. No, I am arguing in purely normative terms about what the ideal state of a jury would be. I understand that actual juries do not live up to that, but I also believe that normative rules for jury conduct are important.

ETA Again: Just to clarify, I am not saying that a juror cannot use his or her own knowledge to make a determination. I am talking specifically about a juror providing new information to other jurors.

143

No, I actually can’t see the difference.

Here’s my problem: One witness was paid and the other was not. If I know (think I know) that people who do things without pay are more trustworthy than people who are paid to say them, then how is that not new information? If I say to the other jurors, “People who get paid to say things might only be saying them for the money, not because they are true,” have I tainted the jury? After all, there is a fact of the matter on that account. Either people who are paid are more likely to say false things/come to incorrect conclusions or they are not. No one presented any evidence on that in court. What if I recently read a paper published in a psychology journal that told me that people who get paid to say things are less likely to be correct. Am I then not allowed to say I think that is true? Am I allowed to say I think that’s true but just not mention the article? I really don’t understand what you are proposing.

But I’m going to pose the example of the tree blocking line of sight at an intersection to some lawyers I know at a more reasonable hour of the day. Because I think no jury has ever operated that way, and I don’t even think legal scholars believe it is the right way for a jury to operate. If I am wrong, I’ll post again to say how wrong I was, but otherwise, I think I’ve probably overstayed my welcome in this thread.

3 Likes
144

Please don’t say that. You are always welcome, and I do welcome and enjoy the debate. We are butting heads and disagreeing with each other, but please do not think that I hold any ill will toward you. Quite the opposite; I really do appreciate your sticking around for the debate and giving me thoughtful answers, even if they are at odds with what I believe. I hope that you do not bear any ill will against me.

But you are right; we should let cooler heads prevail and get some expert opinions on this. I am talking about ideals rather than what can reasonably expected to happen to begin with (ETA: Sorry, this is my way of saying that I could be wrong. I should just say that clearly).

145

Logically, this is going to happen in almost every case. Any random 12 people gathered together are going to have knowledge far in excess of any single person, no matter how educated or worldly. The concept you are proposing is that the jury somehow has to ignore their own collective knowledge and replace it with the stories the prosecution and defense have ginned up for the case. That is virtually impossible - it’s not how humans work. The only way the jury has of deciding which story, defense or prosecution, is more valid is to use their own prior knowledge and judgement.

The way you seem to want juries to work depends upon gathering together 12 drooling idiot amnesiacs. At that point, why bother? A random number generator will do a better job.

Relating this back to the original post; if the juror who recognized the ICE officer’s patch had simply insisted that they recognized it forcefully enough during deliberations without doing the internet research (and ironically, with less certainty), they would not have run afoul of the jury tampering problem. There would be no mistrial and everyone would have had to accept the results. The prosecution could have objected about the knowledge the juror brought into deliberations, but the judge would simply have smacked them down for being the one who mistakenly introduced the evidence the juror used against their case.

4 Likes
146

How could the prosecution do this? There is no mechanism for the prosecution to find out about what the jury discussed behind closed doors.

In this case, the only way that the court found out about the juror doing outside research is because the other jurors ratted that juror out to the judge…so it does appear that there is indeed a mechanism for jurors to bring concerns to the judge. If the other jurors had not brought their concerns to the court, the prosecution (and we) would never know about it. And that is the problem.

Do you honestly have no problem with a juror saying, “Actually, the defendant is a member of Antifa. I know this because he was wearing a badge that only Antifa uses. I have a brother in law who is in Antifa and he told me all their secrets. Therefore we must convict!” Would you have no problem with a conviction based on that? A juror introducing new “facts” without giving the other side a chance to examine them can work both ways: it can just as easily work in the prosecution’s favor. If jurors are allowed to throw in their own “facts,” how do we know what is bullshit and what isn’t? We don’t, because there is no record of what the jury discusses and nobody has a chance to cross-examine it.

I am not saying that everyone needs to be a drooling amnesiac; I am saying that the information used to determine the outcome of a case must be examined by both sides and duly recorded.

147

No, I don’t. That’s why there are 12 of them. Just like the jury has to use their prior knowledge and judgement to evaluate what the defense and prosecution say, so do they have to use it to evaluate the arguments of their peers in deliberations. That’s what deliberations are for. In most juries, the group don’t go into deliberations in agreement. There are people who have already decided on the verdict in opposite directions and people who are still undecided. It’s the job of the jury to try and come to an agreement on the verdict, which involves discussion and disagreement.

I think the problem you are trying to solve - one or more members of the jury with outside knowledge that supersedes what is presented by one of the attorneys - is supposed to be dealt with during jury selection. In the case of the original post, if the knowledge of the ICE officer’s patch was going to sink the prosecution’s case, then they needed to to a better job of selecting the jury for people who couldn’t identify it.

At this point, I’m going to bow out of the conversation. I’d suggest that you examine your own motivations for continuing. Are you really going to argue this hard on a position that is not supported but the way that juries work, both by intent and practically? Because it seems like you’re at the point where you’re arguing because you’re smitten with it rather than actually believing it. If not, then I apologize, but it’s worth examining.

3 Likes