The Danger of Knowing What You Shouldn’t Know

After U.S District Judge Brian Cogan read El Chapo his guilty verdict he told the jury one thing, “do not speak to the press.”He did not say this out of concern for himself or El Chapo, he said it to protect the jurors themselves. They had just put one of the most notorious and dangerous drug lords behind bars. If their identity leaked the Sinaloa cartel could easily retaliate. One juror did not follow this instruction. Instead he or she (they requested anonymity) chose to give an interview to Vice Newswho in turn published an article that could blow apart the whole trial. 

            The juror gave detailed information about several aspects of the trial. The juror detailed the relationships among the jury, giving each a nickname based on their preferences and also the extreme safety measures that were put in place to protect the group. He/she discussed the deliberations and how one holdout lead to six days of deliberations. However, the most interesting and perhaps damaging aspect of the interview is when the juror revealed that at least five of the jurors involved in deliberations and two alternates were ignoring the judge’s orders and following the news coverage on the case. Specifically, they knew about information that the judge ordered withheld from the jury. It was reported that El Chapo raped girls as young as 13. Since there was no evidence to corroborate these highly prejudicial claims they were withheld from the jury. Despite this the juror who was interviewed said jurors knew about this information and it was discussed (even though he claimed it did not weigh into their decision). When asked why no one told the judge about this breach in the rules the juror said they feared repercussions and wouldn’t just be dismissed from the jury but might go to jail. 

            Within hours of the Vice article coming out El Chapo’s lawyer put out a statementsaying they were researching the issue and would make appropriate motions. Two days later they came out andsaid they were going to push for a new trial but first would request an evidentiary hearing looking into the extent of the juror misconduct. A new trial would virtually void the months spent on the original trial and the significant government resources that went into it. 

            Ultimately the claims in the Vice article and motion by the defense team highlight how dangerous a “googling juror”can be. This term/phenomenon is based on the fact that now we have the world at our fingertips. We can obtain virtually any piece of information instantaneously something that could not be done a mere twenty years ago. While this access to information is good in many cases in the context of the jury it is dangerous. Many verdicts have had to be thrown out and new trials ordered because the jury had prejudicial information that was purposefully kept out of trial. Since there is no way to sequester the jury from the internet it will continue to be a problem that courts face in the coming years. Currently the only real remedy is to try to convince the jury to uphold their oath and maintain the fairness that is a pillar of the American court system.