RSS FeedTattoo as evidence of murder
Telltale teardrop quashes acquittal
Ontario Superior Court Justice Todd Archibald should not have barred testimony from a gang expert and three Malvern Crew members that could have bolstered the Crown’s case that Abbey had a teardrop tattooed under his right eye to show he had shot Simeon Peter, 19, the appeal court ruled.
More on jury background checks
Ontario reveals juries given secret background checks
Jury vetting alleged in Toronto
Background checks on potential jurors in Windsor and Barrie made headlines a few weeks ago. I wrote about them but focused mostly on privacy issues. Now a defence lawyer questions jury selection in a Toronto murder trial. His client was convicted because, according to the lawyer, they “got the wrong jury.”
(post sponsored by advicescene.com)
A Google Search For “Mistrial” Yields Too Many Results
As the prevalence of internet-capable smartphones increases, so too does the rate of mistrials.
According to The New York Times,
The use of BlackBerrys and iPhones by jurors gathering and sending out information about cases is wreaking havoc on trials around the country, upending deliberations and infuriating judges.
Last week a juror in a large federal drug trial in Florida admitted to the judge that he had been doing online research on the case. The judge then discovered that eight other jurors had been Googling as well, which forced a mistrial and laid eight weeks of work by federal prosecutors and defence lawyers to waste.
In the same week, an Arkansas court was asked to overturn $12.6 million (USD) judgment, claiming that a juror used Twitter to send updates during the civil trial.
And defence lawyers in the federal corruption trial of a former Pennsylvania state senator demanded that the judge declare a mistrial because a juror had Tweeted that a “big announcement” (the verdict) was coming on Monday.
In the United States and Canada, jurors are not supposed to seek information relevant to the case outside of the courtroom. They must reach their verdict based only on the admissible evidence.
The principle behind this rule is that information presented in the courtroom must pass through a number of filters before reaching the “triers of fact.” These filters are the adversarial system, the law of evidence, and the discretion of a judge. They are intended to enhance the veracity, relevancy, and legality of information presented to jurors.
For instance, the adversarial system creates the opportunity for information presented to jurors to be responded to and challenged by both parties. The reliability of a witness’ testimony can be challenged in the crucible of cross-examination.
But neither party has the opportunity to challenge information gleaned from a juror’s Blackerry, which may be prejudicial and/or just plain false.
Now, using their cellphones, jurors can read the accused’s blog, or examine an intersection using Google Maps, thereby violating the legal system’s rules of evidence. They can also trumpet the contents of the jury’s secret deliberations to the public by Tweeting, blogging, and texting.
According to Douglas L. Keene, president of the American Society of Trial Consultants, “It’s really impossible to control it.”
Mr. Keene said jurors might think they were pursuing justice and the truth by conducting additional research and detective work:
There are people who feel they can’t serve justice if they don’t find the answers to certain questions.
But according to Professor Wellborn, co-author of a handbook on evidence law,
The beauty of the adversarial system [is lost] when the jurors go out on their own.
According to the New York Times,
In the Arkansas case, Stoam Holdings, the company trying to overturn the $12.6 million judgment, said a juror, Johnathan Powell, had sent Twitter messages during the trial. Mr. Powell’s messages included “oh and nobody buy Stoam. Its bad mojo and they’ll probably cease to Exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter” and “So Johnathan, what did you do today? Oh nothing really, I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else’s money.”
See relevant Canadian law by clicking “Read more.”
