Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
03/18/09
What a bunch of bullshit! Jurors are instructed NOT to discuss details of the case they are serving on with ANYONE. If a Judge cannot clarify that this includes ANY means of communication, whether it be text, IM, email, tweets, smoke signals, morse code, whatever, then he or she fails as a Judge and should be immediately removed from the bench..
03/18/09
They could just install GSM/wifi/DCS/3G signal blocking devices :/
Communicate with the outside world now, you poor bored bastards.
03/17/09
03/17/09
It should also be noted that jurors can ask questions of witnesses through the Judge. The jury box does not need to be a group of mutes; speak up if you want to know something that a lawyer has not asked.
03/17/09
03/17/09
One of the comments on the New York Times story said that slapping jurors with a fine is justified the same way someone who cheats on a test is automatically given an "F". I am slightly put off, as the consequences of a jury's verdict (jail time, acquittal, capital punishment) are certainly heavier than a failing grade.
03/17/09
Frankly, I think right there is a great notion. Catch a juror texting? Whack 'em across the face until their eyes go all googly. Maybe next time they'll pay attention.
03/17/09
...what? so a judge must declare a mistrial when jurors are known to have accessed outside info, but they are powerless to stop them from doing so?
fucking a.
03/17/09
03/17/09
03/17/09
... which still leaves them powerless to stop them in the first place - punishment after the fact doesn't undo the damage. Sure it's a deterrent, but I find it hard to believe they can't actively ban jurors from even possessing communications devices during court.
of course it's kind of moot in that they aren't in the actual court the whole time, and it wouldn't be kosher to deprive them of their phones in off hours.
i guess the only way to make secure jurys is to treat jurors like prisoners... which wont go over well.
03/17/09
I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of jurors, however, would be must less interested in researching or twittering if they knew there was a real penalty attached to it.
03/17/09
blogging, no good, I'll give you that, but research? how is that a bad thing? With the filter of carefully practiced speech and testimony, what's the point of even having the trial? By the time it comes to the courtroom everyone knows what everyone else is going to say. Movies have given us all the notion of a "court room drama" but in the vast majority of cases it is anything but. If you want to dig up some facts on your own so you can provide a better verdict, I say go for it.
03/17/09
And I don't mean that in a bad way.
You set up an incredible number of rules about what is allowed in and when. Who can say what and when. Who must say what and when. Who doesn't have to say anything and what that means. All with the goal of setting up the most fair process possible.
Yes, I realize that doesn't mean the outcomes are still fair, but the rules are there for a reason.
Otherwise we might as well just head back to the edge of the pond and ask the mob whether she's a witch.
03/17/09
This goes for schools, and cars, too.
03/17/09
That works pretty well too.
03/17/09
03/17/09
03/17/09
03/17/09
Much like the fact that a single special forces soldier dying means they are all incapable.
But it is true, sometimes I forget that the entire world doesn't operate quite as well as we do here in New York.
03/17/09
If a guy is able to snatch a gun and shoot everything up before one of the other armed guards in the freaking room is able to react, a cellphone having signal isn't going to change anything.
03/18/09
03/17/09
And like he thought about doing, you can fine them and jail them.
Let them know ahead of time that their little twittering could lead to a few days in the slammer and a much lighter wallet and maybe they will think twice about deciding that the CSI entry on wikipedia leads them to believe that the blood splatter must mean the defendant was 7'3".
03/17/09
to me, that's just one of those places where it's common sense not to bust out your phone.
03/17/09
And moreover, it's already covered by the "don't talk about any of this" jury instructions.
But I'm a softie. Before I start fining/jailing people, I do like to give them a heads-up that it's on the table.
03/17/09
You have to remember that our juries are often filled with the lowest common denominators of society...
03/17/09
That works pretty well too.
03/17/09
"You have to remember that our juries are often filled with the lowest common denominators of society... "
Yup. Your fate will be decided by 12 people that are either too dumb to get out of jury duty, or are incompetent enough to not be needed anywhere.
03/18/09
As long as its phrased like that, a judge would find it difficult - though not impossible - to get shirty about things. He might confine the jury and hope that peer pressure might take care of things, or simply declare a mistrial and throw things into the hands of fate, but aside from that, there simply aren't that many other options open.
Aside from the obvious one - screen the jurors. I expect that's going to be a new question added to the selection process.
"Do you believe you cannot render an honest verdict if you are disconnected from the internet?"
"No, sir, I don't believe I can render an honest verdict if you take away my internet access."
"I'm sorry, your honor, this person is unacceptable as a juror."
Oi.
03/18/09
Judge's aren't bullied easily, and they've heard every twist of words from lawyers already.
03/02/09
The Persecution Rests..?
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
TPB usually pulls in enough to cover bandwidth... and beer :)
02/19/09
02/19/09
02/19/09
02/19/09