E-Jurors: A View from the Bench

Antoinette Plogstedt
{"title":"E-Jurors: A View from the Bench","authors":"Antoinette Plogstedt","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2278907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Electronic jurors pose new twists to an old problem. With emerging technology in mobile devices, social media, and internet research, juror misconduct exists in new shapes and forms. Many jurisdictions have made attempts to curb electronic misconduct by modifying standard jury instructions and confiscating juror cell phones. Some judges have implemented jury instructions which remind jurors to refrain from communicating about the case and conducting on-line research. However, their efforts fall short. In previous literature, practitioners, students and a few scholars have offered suggestions on modifying jury instructions to better inform jurors of prohibited misconduct. To address the overall electronic juror problem, this Article explains, from a unique judicial vantage point, that the jury system should be improved by better educating judges on emerging technology and social trends; improving jury instructions to specify changing mobile devices, social media sites and internet research with clear reasons for the prohibited conduct; encouraging attorneys to address social media and juror internet use; and engaging active jurors. This Article’s most critical recommendations include encouraging juror questioning of witnesses and adopting the Author’s specific proposed jury instruction, which identifies a detailed and comprehensive list of social media sites and internet search tools, along with compelling reasons for refraining from misconduct.","PeriodicalId":258683,"journal":{"name":"The Cleveland State Law Review","volume":"44 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cleveland State Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2278907","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Electronic jurors pose new twists to an old problem. With emerging technology in mobile devices, social media, and internet research, juror misconduct exists in new shapes and forms. Many jurisdictions have made attempts to curb electronic misconduct by modifying standard jury instructions and confiscating juror cell phones. Some judges have implemented jury instructions which remind jurors to refrain from communicating about the case and conducting on-line research. However, their efforts fall short. In previous literature, practitioners, students and a few scholars have offered suggestions on modifying jury instructions to better inform jurors of prohibited misconduct. To address the overall electronic juror problem, this Article explains, from a unique judicial vantage point, that the jury system should be improved by better educating judges on emerging technology and social trends; improving jury instructions to specify changing mobile devices, social media sites and internet research with clear reasons for the prohibited conduct; encouraging attorneys to address social media and juror internet use; and engaging active jurors. This Article’s most critical recommendations include encouraging juror questioning of witnesses and adopting the Author’s specific proposed jury instruction, which identifies a detailed and comprehensive list of social media sites and internet search tools, along with compelling reasons for refraining from misconduct.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
电子陪审员:法官的观点
电子陪审员给一个老问题带来了新的转折。随着移动设备、社交媒体和互联网研究等新兴技术的出现,陪审员的不当行为以新的形式和形式存在。许多司法管辖区试图通过修改标准陪审团指示和没收陪审员手机来遏制电子不端行为。一些法官已经实施了陪审团指示,提醒陪审员不要就案件进行交流,也不要在网上进行研究。然而,他们的努力还远远不够。在之前的文献中,从业人员、学生和一些学者提出了修改陪审团指令的建议,以更好地告知陪审员禁止的不当行为。为了解决整个电子陪审员问题,本文从独特的司法角度解释了陪审团制度的完善,应加强对法官的新兴技术和社会趋势的教育;改进陪审团的指示,明确规定更换移动设备、社交媒体网站和互联网研究,并明确禁止行为的原因;鼓励律师解决社交媒体和陪审员使用互联网的问题;积极参与陪审员。本文最关键的建议包括鼓励陪审员询问证人,并采纳作者提出的具体陪审团指示,该指示确定了详细而全面的社交媒体网站和互联网搜索工具清单,以及避免不当行为的令人信服的理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Masterpiece Cakeshop's Homiletics The Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Incapacity and Ability to Discharge the Powers and Duties of Office? How Big Money Ruined Public Life in Wisconsin The Duty to Charge in Police Use of Excessive Force Cases Book Review: Analyzing the Effectiveness of the Tallinn Manual’s Jus Ad Bellum Doctrine on Cyberconflict,: A NATO-Centric Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1