Federal court policy makers are proposing a ban on using cell phones and smartphone devices to communicate information about cases being heard by jurors.  Several states are in stages of promulgating similar rules prohibiting jurors from tweeting or otherwise communicating with anyone about the case.

The recent article published in Wired Magazine includes a pdf link to the ban which states in pertinent part: “You may not communicate with anyone about the case on your cellphone, through e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone, text messaging, or on Twitter, through any blog or website, through any internet chat room, or by way of any other social networking websites, including Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and YouTube.”  If the jury was still out on the actual use of these sites consider the case where a mistrial ended a federal drug trial in Florida after jurors “admitted they were doing internet research” during trial.

Here’s how some state courts (IL & CA) have enacted similar bans:

California Civil Jury Instructions SERIES 100 PRETRIAL: 100. Preliminary Admonitions: “Do not use any electronic device or media, such as a cell phone or smart phone, PDA, computer, the Internet, any Internet service, any text or instant-messaging service, any Internet chat room, blog, or Web site, including social networking websites or online diaries, to send or receive any information to or from anyone about this case or your experience as a juror until after you have been discharged from your jury duty.”

Illinois pattern jury instruction IPI 1.01: “…jurors are now instructed that the use of cell phones, text messaging, Internet postings and Internet access devices in connection with your duties [as jurors] violates the rules of evidence and you are prohibited from using them.  Click here for the full article from the Passen Law Group in Chicago, Illinois.

J. Nick Augustine, J.D.

ALRPRA, INC.

Yesterday I entered some images in an annual print competition. On the way home, I remembered that I wrote an article like this well over a year ago – but given the timing with the New Year and print comp season I thought posting a revised version would be helpful and appropriate.

Print competition is one of the best ways to help you master your craft. It can also help you get recognition for your work.

Staircase, Barcelona

Examples of judging criteria

Impact: Does this image grab attention? Is its message understood immediately?

Style: Does the image seem to be an extension of the sensibilities of the photographer? Will this image hold up over time?

Composition: Look at the structure of the image. Is there movement or is it static? Is it balanced by use of negative space? Does it have depth? Is there a primary focal point?

Creativity: Does this photograph show creative intent? Is it innovative and unusual in some way?

Technique: Was this image created with the use of any treatments or Photoshop tricks? Does the technique support the image or does it distract?

Lighting: Does lighting compliment the subject matter? Is it well-controlled?

Print Quality: Are there any flaws in the print? Does it seem too light or dark? Does the printing style enhance the message in the image?

Print Presentation: Does the presentation (mounting, matting, etc) of the image support or upstage the image?

The judging process can be educational and emotionally challenging for the photographer. Judges may see an image much differently than you do. They may notice flaws you are not aware of, or compare it to images that you’ve never seen. They may also see unique, positive qualities that you’re unaware of, or have discounted as unimportant.

Tips for printing your competition images:

Print your images without flaws, if possible. No “digital footprints”, rogue pixels, dust spots, scratches, bumps, or other distractions.

Use your image title to help tell the story. A title can sometimes make or break a score, believe it or not.

Lighting used in print competition is usually very bright. Ask about this before you enter. If lighting is intense, adjust the print brightness down so that it shows well.

Make presentation of your print clean, stylish, and understated. Use matting if you wish and if the rules permit it. Matt color can be very important.

In most cases, media types should be limited to semi-gloss or glossy photographic-style media. Inkjet is fine, of course, if well-printed. Fine art, or watercolor papers generally don’t show well in judging environments.

Keep print dimensions, mounting, and matting within the competition rules. An oversized or undersized print, or mounting board, can get you disqualified.

Parting Thoughts

Enter several events a year. Experience is the best teacher…. and a good showing gives you bragging rights!

Enter your best images, or images that have style or content innovations that you want to test in the “real” world.

Remember that judges are only human. They can be maddeningly stubborn, excitable, distracted, or bored. They also frequently find the diamond in the rough, and give it the attention it really deserves!

See the Workshops tab above for info about the new Mastering Digital Printing seminar coming up in February.

 There was an interesting item in The Volokh Conspiracy on the concept of “juror nullification” in which a jury decides to vote against the requirements of the law when it feels the law is not doing substantial justice. See http://volokh.com/2010/02/02/judge-jack-weinstein-again-sings-the-praises-of-the-jurys-nullification-power/

The Volokh Conspiracy piece largely quotes a recent Second Circuit Opinion, United States v. Polouizzi, which I also quote in pertinent part here:

In those decisions reducing the constitutional role of the jury and arrogating to courts themselves greater control of jurors than the Constitution permits, modern federal judges have assigned the ugly name “nullification” to the jury’s exercise of discretion-a word having negative connotations dating back to some juries’ post-Civil War harsh treatment of minorities. A more apt word for modern juries’ exercise of their constitutional power to soften the application of overly harsh laws in specific cases would be “rectification.” Exercise of this corrective power relies on the jury’

Although the concept is typically discussed in the criminal law arena, it also is applicable to civil cases and we have all seen lawyers at least walk the line in closing arguments of asking for a jury verdict which is contrary to the instructions the judge is about to give them. This issue is a balance between a lawyer’s obligation of zealous advocacy on behalf of a client and the obligation to represent a client within the bounds of the law.

In the end, under Rule 3.4(e) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (eff. January 1, 2010), a lawyer cannot “in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused….”

Under Rule 3.3(a), “[a] lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer….”

CONCLUSION: Lawyers cannot tell jurors to ignore the jury instructions and cannot tell them to ignore the evidence. But, they can probably walk right up to these lines and give inferences which have any good faith basis, including public policy bases. Deciding whether one crosses the line from zealous advocacy into false representations must be done on a case by case basis and may be one of those things like obscenity: You know it when you see it.

This article examines how judges are adapting to the threat of jurors use of Twitter, Facebook and the like.  Dallas judges say they include the prohibition against the use of social networking in their instructions but one expert doesn’t think that’s enough.  Eric Robinson, an attorney specializing in this area, says that jurors need to understand the rationale behind the prohibition so they get it. 

I agree.  Perhaps examples of the problems and the consequences would help drive the point home.

There are very few things that this great country requires a citizen to do. All males must sign up for the draft at the age of 18, people must pay taxes if they are working and everyone is required to serve on a jury. There are very few exceptions to the rule. People who are above a certain age are able to stop going to jury duty, but for the most part you are required to go. It doesn’t matter what you do for work because even judges are required to go to jury duty. As most of people already know, jurors are selected randomly through a computer system. Selected jurors get notified by mail and can be sent to any court that is within the county of the person’s residence.

If for some reason you can’t serve on the day that is given, you usually defer to another date. If you don’t attend jury duty, you can be charged with a misdemeanor. A person who doesn’t attend jury duty can be fined up to $2,000. When a person is charged the court will usually send a summons to the person’s last known address. If the person doesn’t show up on the date that they were summoned, then the judge could put a warrant for the person’s arrest. Through this process, a person that has never been in trouble with the law before, can be arrested and brought to court.

What usually happens with these types of cases is that the court will have the person sign up for jury duty and hold over the criminal case. After the person performs jury duty, the charges are usually dismissed. However, the best thing to do is to make sure that you go to jury duty or get the court to allow you move the date. The last thing you want to happen is to be arrested for not going to jury duty.

Interes9ted twitter followers please visit- twitter: http://twitter.com/AttorneyChan

Interested in becoming a Facebook fan please visit http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Boston-MA/Law-offices-of-

Attorney-Jason-Chan/101494423854?ref=sgm Massachusetts General Laws regarding jury duty http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-234-toc.htm

Mass Juror Service Website https://juryduty.majury.gov/ojcweb/public/start.aspx

Boston Globe Article about courts cracking down on people who skipped jury duty http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/10/05/massachusetts_cracks_down_on_jury_duty_shirkers/?page=1

My  friend, Bob, was so bored during jury service that he spent most of the day updating his Facebook status.  Other jury members have blogged, made and uploaded webcams  or sent out indiscreet tweets  – while on active duty.  Who can blame them – with so many court cases being televised , it’s hard to  know where sub judice ends and  Judge Judy begins. According to an Eve Silvestrini blog, jury members are going further than that – Overzealous jury members have been known to  cause mistrials by googling   criminal records and checking out not just the defendants, but the plaintiffs, their lawyers and judges as well.

A recent report showed that 53% of employers use  search engines , linkedin,  facebook or twitter profiles to check out candidates before hiring .  What the report didn’t say is how many potential employees use linkedin, facebook, twitter and google to find out more about their prospective interviewers.  The days when a quick glance at your corporate website was enough prep for an interview have long gone.

Likewise, your average consumer knows that a genuine -  i.e. consumer-generated- product review is just a google click away,  and controlling what they are saying about you, your business or your brand has never been harder, or more important.

Armed with sexy mobile devices and armies of friends and followers, consumers are increasing more confident and  empowered.  It’s no wonder that companies like Visible Technologies, who produce apps that allow companies and brands  to monitor and manage their social media presence, have just managed to raise an extra 22 million to invest in more software.

Back in the courthouse and according to TIME. jurors are to be asked to switch off their blackberries and put the iPhones away. Why they don’t just cut the free wi-fi or block the signal,who knows?

So the public, the consumer, the end-user – the money – is out there being both smug judge and informed juror and presenting its own peer-to peer witnesses.  It’s going to cost a lot of money and take a lot of social media savvy to keep  following those random tweets and to make sure we all  start thinking what the  brand wants us to think  again.

Here is another article discussing how jurors are using social networking, Google and other research and communication devices to empower themselves during deliberations.  Its illegal, creates bias and distorts jury verdict and yet the phenomenon is only growing. 

Two questions: what is the motivation?  Do jurors not get that its wrong?  Do they think its okay because they can get away with it?  Is it push back against a system that they no longer trust?  Is it the intoxication of power?

What to do about it?  Do jurors need to be punished more severely to deter them from the activity?  Does the court system need to develop a technology that requires jurors to lock down all their computers and communication devices during the trial and show evidence that they have down so?  Other ideas?

by Karen Topakian

The other night, my partner Peg and I watched this 1957 Sydney Lumet classic about 12 jurors. All men. Who must determine the guilt of a young man accused of killing his father.

All but three minutes of this 96-minute film take place in a 16 by 24 foot jury room. On a day that is predicted to be the hottest on record. Each of the three windows sits closed unless two men can heave them up open. The single wall-mounted fan remains still. And the stifling New York City heat permeates. They sweat and sit and talk; pontificate, lecture and question and accuse until they reach a unanimous verdict.

Twelve men without names, only numbers. Most of them wearing white shirts ties and jackets. All walked in the room prepared to vote guilty. Except one.

One who isn’t sure. One who wants to talk about it. One who believes that with a young man’s life hanging in the balance, the least they can do is discuss it. This juror, number 8, raises a few questions. Some things don’t sit right with him. He’s not completely sure. He doesn’t think the prosecution’s evidence stacks up quite so neatly. The discussion begins: despite the hoots and hollers of those who are truly committed to the young man’s guilt. Either by the evidence or by their own prejudices about “people like him.”

The story is a simple one with a strong message. Number 8, played by Henry Fonda, simply asks questions. Employing a mild mannered tone without affect or animosity. With fortitude and conviction, he is leadership in action. The unanimous vote unravels.

The courage of his one voice requires examination. How many times have we served on committees or boards or juries or even amongst friends and family where a decision was made without a voice raised to oppose, to question, to discuss?

How many of us went along because we didn’t want to take the time or waste time. Didn’t want to be the lone voice or weren’t sure of what we thought, so said nothing.

Most of our group decisions aren’t made with a young life on the line. But if they were would we be ready and able to speak up if we never had before?

Jury trials have had a place in our criminal justice system for hundreds of years.  It was waaay back in 1215 that the Roman Catholic Church renounced their support for trial by ordeal and the modern day jury was formed.  And we’ve all watched Garrows Law, haven’t we.  Trial by ordeal was not much fun.

Members of the House of Lords have, in recent years, spoken up in favour of jury trials; it was Lord Kingsland who said:

“Jury trial has been the central component in the conduct of all serious criminal trials for about the last 700 years.  The contribution it has made to the preservation of the liberty of the individual and the legitimacy of government is quite incalculable in particular.”

Crown Court trial without a jury is only allowed where jury tampering is suspected, where there is evidence of a “real and present danger” and a trial without a jury is in the interests of justice.  There are also provisions under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, s.17-20 to try defendants accused of domestic violence on sample counts and, on conviction, for the remainder of the counts to be tried by a judge alone.  (These provisions came into force January 2007)

Indeed, also in 2007, the Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill was delayed for discussion by the House of Lords, but the Attorney General threatened to use the hefty weight of the Parliament Act to go over the Lords’ heads and ratify the bill without them.

Fraud is a complex area of criminal law and trials often go on for months.  The facts themselves are deeply intricate and vast in quantity.  A chartered accountant might feel swamped wading through evidence – how is Joe Smith from Clapham be supposed to comprehend it?

What does Anna think?

Personally I feel that when a case is of the utmost importance, when there is danger that something could go awry with the jury’s decision, the state feels that it is necessary to remove this choice from their power.  This fact tells us something very important.  The jury is a fallible entity.  Many miscarriages of justice have occurred because juries have not arrived in the Court room as “blank sheets” ready to absorb facts and make a balanced decision.  They drag the baggage of prejudice  behind them, the ignorance of legal structure and the inability to comprehend a Judge’s direction.  They are also, clearly, open to intimidation and outside influence.

What is a juror to make of ‘hearsay’?  What is a juror to make of different weights of evidence?  I once met a juror who didn’t know what monosyllabic meant.   How was she supposed to be able to understand that although she had heard something said in court, she was not supposed to take it into consideration when deciding her verdict?  How are jurors supposed to formulate a decision on one person’s freedom based on the differing opinions of two expert witnesses?  Are they not swayed by the crying mother in the public gallery, or the evidence of a child?

Jurors are merely people.  I have had the chance (I was going to say pleasure but I shall not) to sit on jury service once already for my young years and I was repulsed and severely disappointed at what went on behind closed doors.  Putting lunch before liberty, prejudice before fact.  Reason cast aside like an unwanted doll and the very piece of evidence they had been told to disregard as hearsay banded around the room.  ”But she said he saw him…”

Non jury trials seem to work perfectly well for Magistrates Courts, what is so wrong with extending the notion to more serious offences?

What to do then, instead?  A panel of experts?  This is the suggested replacement for fraud trials.  What for blue collar?  Anna thinks a panel of experts, two of the crimes committed, two of the legal experience of magistrates perhaps, and  two more.  There would definitely be more room on the benches!

Now the Washington Post has weighed in on this one.  The article discusses the case involving Baltimore mayor Sheila Dixon alleged embezzlement and how jurors chatted about the case as friends on Facebook among other issues.  But the article even goes on to say that use of the Internet to look up information about a case is grounds for possible mistrial.

Professor Valerie P. Hans, the noted expert on juries, and a member of the faculty at the Cornell University Law School, will give a series of lectures on February 23-25, 2010, at the Baldy Center for Law and Social Policy at the University of Buffalo Law School.

For more information, please see the Baldy Center Website.

Dogs make great pets and there are many Americans that have these great companions at home. For many years now, dogs have also been used for helping the visually impaired to get around to helping police officers solve crime.

There has been a movement across the country to use dogs in the courtroom. The belief is that a dog can ease the tension there is in a trial or even in a plea setting. Some believe that it can ease the tensions of the adversarial process for everyone. Perhaps  a dog can ease the stress for judges, lawyers, witnesses and jurors.

 There are some aspects that the MA courts will need to deal with prior to adopting the system. One possible issues dealing with allergies. We know that certain people are allergic to dogs and the court would need to ask anyone that would be in the court room if they are allergic to dogs. Another potential hold up is the funding. Someone would need to take care of the dogs and the funding would need to come from somewhere. As we already know, the current fiscal has deeply affected the judicial budget.

Finally, dogs are wonderful and having them in the court room is a wonderful idea. People are uneasy about the court process and tend to be very stressed out during trials. What would be better than to have a friendly pooch to pet and look at? Having dogs in the court room is a great idea, but I wouldn’t count on petting one in a Massachusetts court room any time soon.

Interes9ted twitter followers please visit- twitter: http://twitter.com/AttorneyChan

Interested in becoming a Facebook fan please visit http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Boston-MA/Law-offices-of-Attorney-Jason-Chan/101494423854?ref=sgm

For More information:

Promoting justice through the use of well-trained dogs to provide emotional support for everyone in our criminal justice system http://www.courthousedogs.com/courtroom.html

A comforting canine presence provides victims with a safe harbor By Rebecca Wallick http://www.thebark.com/content/dogscourtroom

Assistance dogs’ use for kids in courtrooms urged http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S1250476.shtml Judge’s dog is friend of the court http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/110756

Should the court and parties reasonably expect jurors to refrain from using the internet and, more importantly, discussing the case on Facebook?

Members of the jury who convicted Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon of misappropriating gift cards Tuesday became friends on Facebook as much as a week earlier and referenced the case in online messages between days of deliberations.

While it is not yet clear if the five jurors’ outside-of-court communications constitute juror misconduct, Visiting Judge Dennis M. Sweeney had routinely instructed them during the trial not to discuss the case with anyone outside deliberations, specifically prohibiting Internet commentary.

Sweeney said they could tell their families and employers that they were hearing the Dixon case but otherwise encouraged them to keep a low profile.

HT: Juries

It’s an interesting point. Obviously, jurors are told not to discuss the case with anyone during the trial. But is it realistic to believe that they won’t, especially in our current TMZ/tabloid times? And social networking sites make it easier to talk about it with more people.

Court officials say a Birmingham woman who changed her name to Jesus Christ didn’t live up to it when she reported for jury duty this week. The woman, previously named Dorothy Lola Killingworth, was sent to Judge Clyde Jones’s courtroom for a criminal case Monday.

Court officials told The Birmingham News Tuesday that the 59-year-old was excused because she was disruptive and kept asking questions instead of answering them.

Efforts to reach Christ for comment were unsuccessful… read full article

Unless you were chosen to serve as a juror, most people don’t know what jury trials are really about.  Sure, court room dramas are nice, but movies seldom explain the process.  Here are a few points about one of your most important consitutional rights. 

 The number of jurors: Depending on what court you are being tried, the number of jurors will vary.  The district court requires a unanimous decision by 6 jurors.  The superior court requires a unanimous decision by 12 jurors.  In short, the superior court requires twice as many jurors to return a verdict.  One reason for this difference is that the penalties are much more severe in superior court.  The stakes being higher, the amount of jurors are also higher. 

 Alternates: Most judges will sit more jurors than is required.  In both the district court and the superior court it is very common for the judge to impanel more jurors than required.  Judges will sit alternate jurors in case people have emergencies that arise.  If a judge empanels the minimum amount of jurors and a juror is unable to perform his or her duties, then the judge will most likley have to declare a mistrial.  To avoid this problem, judges will sit additional jurors. 

 Impaneling a jury:  The amount of time it takes to impanel a jury can very significantly.  Essentially, the court wants to impanel an impartial jury and for certain cases this can be difficult.  If you have jury duty, I am sure this isn’t something that you want to hear.  Cases that particularly take a long time to impanel a jury are cases involving sex offenses.  It can take days if not weeks to impanel a jury for a child molestation or rape case.  So if you are serving jury duty and find yourself as a potential jury in a sex offense case prepare for a long process. 

 Decision: As I have mentioned before, a jury decision in Massachusetts needs to be unanimous.  This means that the entire jury needs to agree with the decision of guilty or not guilty.  As you can imagine, this can make for long jury deliberations. 

 This post gives you a little background on jury trials.  Jury trials are complicated and it is never a good idea to represent yourself in a trial.  In the end, it is important to remember that it is not a perfect system.  However, it is bar far the best one ever created.

 Interested twitter followers please visit- twitter: http://twitter.com/AttorneyChan

 Interested in becoming a Facebook fan please visit http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Boston-MA/Law-offices-of-Attorney-Jason-Chan/101494423854?ref=sgm

 For more information:

 About the Massachusetts Jury System

http://www.mass.gov/courts/jury/introduc.htm

 Preparing for a jury trial

http://articles.directorym.com/Preparing_for_a_Jury_Trial_Agawam_MA-r935226-Agawam_MA.html

Glossary of trial terms

http://guides.gottrouble.com/Glossary_of_Jury_Trial_Terms_Massachusetts-r1204930-Massachusetts.html

Defense of Massachusetts Jury Service System

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1289579/defense_of_massachusetts_jury_service.html?cat=17

Anatomy of a jury trial

http://www.america.gov/media/pdf/ejs/0709.pdf#popup

Vanishing Civil Jury Trials

http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/boston-bar/2009/04/the-vanishing-civil-jury-trial/

Child rapist/ Preacher Tony Alamo and Wife

The AP is reporting that convicted child rapist and Christian evangelist Tony Alamo has just been sentenced to 175 years in prison, for his crimes.The sentencing was held in a federal courthouse in Texarkana, Arkansas.

U.S. District Judge Harry F. Barnes sentenced the 75-year-old preacher to what amounts to life in prison, for sexually preying on the daughters of his followers. He would frequently transport underage girls across state lines to molest them, sometimes with the consent of their parents.

Alamo used his influence as both a father figure and a pastor to force himself upon impressionable girls who feared “the loss of their salvation.”, which is an old trick that has often been used by charismatic preachers to receive sexual favors from their followers.

Barnes leveled the maximum sentence against the 75-year-old, who preyed on followers’ young daughters and took child “brides” as young as age 8. A jury convicted Alamo in July on a 10-count indictment earlier this year.

Authorities arrested Alamo, 75, in September and raided his 15-acre compound near Texarkana, Arkansas. Alamo, whose real name is Bernie Hoffman, is founder and leader of Tony Alamo Christian Ministries.

Alamo is a one-time clothing entrepreneur who had achieved financial and business success in that industry.

Alamo, who has made millions through his ministry, also must pay $250,000 in fines. He will return to court for a Jan. 13 hearing at which Barnes will determine if the five women who testified about their sexual abuse will be paid restitution. Federal prosecutors say an expert believes each one should get $2.7 million for the physical and mental abuse they endured.

Alamo, who had muttered and cursed through his two-week trial, stood silently during the sentencing, dressed in a yellow prison uniform and a blue windbreaker. Before Barnes’ ruling, Alamo told the judge: “I lean on the lord Jesus Christ.”

Defense lawyers said the government targeted Alamo because it disapproves of his apocalyptic brand of Christianity. Alamo never testified at trial, but spoke to Barnes twice during the hearing Friday. He first told the judge he thought his defense team provided him adequate legal help, though he wanted them to harshly cross-examine the women to show “that the people who were testifying against me were lying.”

As Alamo left the courthouse, he said he would leave to his church’s future in other hands.

“The Lord is in charge,” the preacher said.

Between Tony Alamo and Carrie Prejean, it has not been a good week for the false prophets of Christianity.

For more information on the life and times of Tony Alamo, click on the links below,but I would suggest you not join their church or donate any funds to them,because they are beyond questionable…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Alamo

http://www.alamoministries.com/

Peter Gotti on the stand Monday as Junior Gotti looks on

The great Gotti Juror Squabble showed no signs of letting up Monday when the judge had to step in to quash a new beef between the panelists.

 by Abby Dryden

The Jury

Eminent Scottish QC  Donald Findlay warns ”In some high-profile cases,the temptation to type in the name of the defendant or the incident into a search engine must be a temptation almost too great’ 

The modern juror has turned investigator. The use of internet search engines on computers and mobile phones after court business has ended for the day poses a threat to the impartiality of  justice.

Mr Findlay writing in the Scottish Legal News states that the ‘googling juror’ must be dealt with. Currently jurors are warned on a routine basis that they must reach their verdict only on admissible evidence and that no discussions should take place outside of  court. There is however, no specific mention made to the use of information technology. This less than explicit warning is not curtailing the more investigative tendencies of some jurors.

There is a broad concern amongst Scottish trial lawyers that the matter is not being dealt with effectively. Mr Findlay goes on to state that he does not believe “that the system does anything to combat it but, rather, has adopted an ostrich approach to it’

A Spokesperson from the Scottish Court Service said. “Although this is a matter for the presiding judge sufficient arrangements are in place to ensure that a judge can direct jurors to have regard only to the evidence”

Not only does this issue raise questions related to the need for new legislation around the use of the internet by jurors,  it highlights yet more failings around the use of a jury based trial system.

www.scotcourts.gov.uk