You can't unplug a juror, so is trial by jury no longer impartial?

The Information Age  

At the tip of our fingers, information has become readily accessible by a simple Google search. With the emergence of social media outlets, it is nearly impossible for most to avoid the constant bombardment of domestic and foreign news. High-profile cases inevitably become an area of primary concern because of a defendant's right to an impartial jury. The Internet has empowered many to vocalize opinions and guaranteed an infinite flow of information. But this comes at the cost of citizens formulating personal perceptions of guilt or innocence. Even before a final verdict, even without access to the total record. So in today's social media age, do impartial jurors exist anymore? It's difficult to say. 

Trial by Media

The concept of "Trial by Media" was born in the late 20th century, with arising concerns that a jury's impartiality will be compromised due to the consumption of extraneous information found on all sorts of social media channels. With how limitless the Internet has become, we are now privy to misinformation and are susceptible to the influence of popular media. As reflected by cases like Derek Chauvin, defendants have begun seeking remedy by filing for a new trial on the basis that extensive pretrial publicity deprived one of their right to a fair trial. 

The Impact of Trial by Media

Courtrooms are not entirely removed from what goes on in the world, which will always affect the verdict. As CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin highlights, there is a constant tension in courtrooms between the desire to obtain a judgment solely based on admitted evidence and the "political and social conditions" that will inevitably affect the outcome in some manner. 

Courts attempt to alleviate this problem by implementing stringent jury instructions and sequestration. But let's be honest, it's the same situation as when an attorney's objection to a witness's answer has been sustained, yet the jury has heard it. It may have been struck from the record, but the jury still heard it. The same issue lies here, where people read and see all sorts of things online; it's nearly impossible for them to unsee or unread something. 

Prospective jurors will undoubtedly see popup news notifications and will be exposed to opinions that may be entirely based on misinformation. This is reflected in the most recent set of model jury instructions issued by a federal Judiciary committee, "persons, entities, and even foreign governments may seek to manipulate your opinions, or your impartiality during deliberation."  

Are there alternatives? Unplug the juror?

Given the emergence of the Information Age, it seems that our trial by jury system is heavily flawed and very susceptible to intense public scrutiny. Social media can easily overwhelm the individual and distract one with misinformation, which encroaches on a defendant's due process rights. Even with all the safeguards in the world, it seems nearly impossible to shelter one from radio, television, and phone. So what's the right solution? 

Honestly, I don't know. A juror connected to the digital age should not be penalized for seeking information. Still, as legal experts note, people are more likely to violate court rules if they don't have access to an "appropriate flow of information," so one proposed solution is empowering jurors with the opportunity to ask questions during trial. To be completely transparent, I don't think we will ever come up with a solution that entirely resolves this issue, but trial by jury has been so central in our justice system that we better start thinking of one.