There have been quite a few articles this week about the implications of iPhones and similar devices in the courtroom.
The story that has perhaps gotten the most attention ran in the New York Times a few days ago: As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials Are Popping Up. The article describes a Florida criminal trial in which a mistrial was declared after it was discovered that eight jurors had been researching the case on the Internet, a criminal trial in Pennsylvania in which a judge declared a mistrial after a juror posted updates on Twitter, and a civil case in Arkansas in which another juror posted updates on Twitter such as this one: “So Johnathan, what did you do today? Oh nothing really, I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else’s money.” MSNBC picked up on the story as did countless other news outlets.
Also this week, the National Law Journal posted a story about judges letting reporters use services like Twitter to live-blog the events at a trial. Some judges prohibit electronic devices in the courtroom, while other judges see no problem with it.
My initial reaction to these stories is that they were sensationalist. As Macworld joked when describing the New York Times article, when a journalist finds three cases of something — it must be a trend!!!
Upon reflection, however, I think there is something here. Jurors getting information from, or communicating with, the outside world is nothing new, nor are journalistic attempts to provide up-to-the-minute coverage of trials. (We all remember the O.J. Simpson trial.) But what is different is that small but powerful technology like the iPhone makes it so easy to get and send information that people don’t think twice about doing it. People are already using iPhones to broadcast all of the minutia about their lives, even what they had for lunch. Having something of true significance to share, like a trial, can somehow seem even more appropriate. And if you are used to using your iPhone to look up information whenever you have a question, wouldn’t it be easy to use your iPhone just to get a quick picture of the area where a crime took place, or to look up a legal concept, or to research a person or a company?
Last month, I had jury service in criminal court in New Orleans for six full days. Along with the feeling of civic responsibility came a lot of down time and boredom, and I found myself making extensive use of my iPhone. At one point, I was voir dired in a high-profile murder case, and I thought about how I could do a quick search on my iPhone and find out what the case was all about. I had to exercise quite a bit of self-control to not do so when I knew how easy it would be. (No, I wasn’t selected for that jury or any others … lawyers love to strike other lawyers from juries!) When the iPhone makes accessing the world to get or send information so darn easy, the temptation to do so can be hard to resist. Perhaps Macworld is right and this isn’t a “trend” per se, but surely an increasing number of courts will be forced to confront questions arising from the use of iPhones in court.
[UPDATE on 3-24-09: Here is a cute cartoon from Courtoons on this subject:]
The Times article featured US District Judge Bill Zloch of the Southern District of Florida. When he was chief there was a strict no cellphone rule for all but lawyers. Juudge Moreno his successor as chief amended the rule to allow jurors and witnesses under subpoena to bring in cellphones. Most judges have the jurors leave their cells on there seats before they begin deliberations. This would tend to solve the jury room research problem but not the nighttime Googling that was described. I personally believe it is an increasing problem and one courts will be hardpressed to solve.
Wow – never thought about jurors and iPhones in the courtroom. That makes for fairness…NOT!
Hera