NYTimes ran an article about a supposed increase in mistrials due to jurors disregarding judges instructions not to discuss or research aspects of the case – largely as a result of the ease of access afforded by iPhones and Blackberries. It’s sort of interesting, though not sure if I necessarily believe it’s widespread. But my favorite part was the end of the article, in which they spoke to a Seth McDowell. He had served as a juror and another juror revealed that she’d Googled the defendant – but got no results.
Mr. McDowell, 35, said he thought about telling the judge, but decided against it. None of the other jurors did, either. Now, he said, after a bit of soul-searching, he feels he may have made the wrong choice. But he remains somewhat torn.
“I don’t know,” he said. “If everybody did the right thing, the trial, which took two days, would have gone on for another bazillion years.”
Mr. McDowell said he planned to attend law school in the fall.
Sounds like the writer of this article is angling for a job with the Onion.
And reminds me once again of something I once heard said about a jury of one’s peers: “How can they be my peers, if they’re not smart enough to get out of jury duty?”