Churchill v. University of Colorado: Sequestering the Jury?

On the first day of trial, the Judge indicated that jurors did not have to stick together at lunch.  They were not sequestered and were free to go home after each session.  This is normal practice.

As we (and others) provide extensive coverage of the trial, one wonders whether in fact trial courts should sequester juries more often.  The NYTimes has written about this problem.  In a recent article, the Times noted the following: 

• Jurors are not supposed to seek information outside of the courtroom. They are required to reach a verdict based on only the facts the judge has decided are admissible, and they are not supposed to see evidence that has been excluded as prejudicial. But now, using their cellphones, they can look up the name of a defendant on the Web or examine an intersection using Google Maps, violating the legal system’s complex rules of evidence. They can also tell their friends what is happening in the jury room, though they are supposed to keep their opinions and deliberations secret.

• A juror on a lunch or bathroom break can find out many details about a case. Wikipedia can help explain the technology underlying a patent claim or medical condition, Google Maps can show how long it might take to drive from Point A to Point B, and news sites can write about a criminal defendant, his lawyers or expert witnesses.

In some cases, the problem may be even more severe than the Times indicated.  As we noted in our coverage of the Nacchio trial, daily transcripts are now produced.  These transcripts will contain all of the events of the day, including assorted hearings conducted outside of the presence of the jury.  To the extent discussed in newspapers and blogs, these events can become know to jurors who are conducting their own exploration over the Internet.  

It suggests the need to more frequently sequester juries.

Comments

[Fred Bauder]

You say, "It suggests the need to more frequently sequester juries." Perhaps it suggests less restrictions on jury members. What is the harm if a well informed juror participates? (Of course, besides information, the searching juror could also acquire a prejudiced view.)

[J. Robert Brown]

Fred:

Your point is a good one. But in fact if, as I noted in the Nacchio trial, sidebars and other conferences held outside the hearing of the jury become available largely on a real time basis, jurors will learn things deliberately intended to be kept out of their hearing.

Jay