We the Internet, Find the Defendant Guilty.

What’s the problem? 
Donald Trump isn’t the only Twitter user causing a ruckus in today’s society. Using the internet as a source of information has become instinctive for most people in today's modern world. But when it comes to juries, the internet has become a significant hazard to the judicial system. Jurors are frequently using twitter and google to communicate facts of ongoing cases with the public and to conduct ex parte research. Consequently, there’s been an up-spike in mistrials and appeals, costing significant taxpayer dollars. Despite judges admonitions, several jurors have admitted to blatantly disregarding instructions and using technology to investigate the case outside of the courtroom. For example, in a federal drug trial in Florida, 9 of the 12 jurors conducted their own google research about the case and found evidence that had deliberately been excluded to preserve the validity of the trial. Jurors may think they are innocently acquiring helpful background knowledge or posting about their jury duty experience, but they often fail to realize the potential repercussions of those actions. For instance, juror misconduct arising from social media and google searching has resulted in reversals of death sentences as well as overturning multimillion-dollar judgments. 

What’s the big deal?  
Concerns about exposing deliberation secrets and independent juror research have existed since the inception of trial by jury, but with modern technology, these concerns are amplified. The wealth of information available at the click of a button allows prejudice and inaccurate information to infiltrate juror deliberations without alerting any of the lawyers or the judge. Years of study and drafting have gone into creating the rules of evidence, which are designed to ensure fairness, eliminate delay and expense, and seek the truth. Google research thwarts these objectives, particularly in cases that receive media attention, by allowing reported 'facts' to shape the minds of jurors before they reach a verdict. This presents two primary issues: first, the facts may be inaccurate or completely untrue, and second, even if accurate, the 'facts' have been excluded from the trial for a carefully justified reason. With this wealth of information, jurors are less deferential to the court and may even subject themselves to confirmation bias while listening to the admitted evidence. These issues threaten the administration of justice and the ability of the jury to remain an impartial fact-finding body. 

What’s the solution?
Lawyers, judges, and other officers of the court should work together to ensure that the Google mistrial epidemic does not continue. Several suggestions have been given in order to protect the integrity of the trial. First, the instructions given by the judge must be emphatic in the prohibition of social media usage and google research. But as any parent knows, forbidding an individual from doing something may subject them to the impulse to do that very thing. So, it's important to inform the jury of why they shouldn't do it, rather than just asserting a bare prohibition. If jurors understood why and truly believe that avoiding internet usage is essential to administering justice, then they are more likely to follow the instruction out of moral obligation. Additionally, many argue that the lawyers have a responsibility to monitor the juror's social media accounts during the trial to ensure compliance (which is an acceptable jury selection technique according to the ABA). Other courts have suggested more radical solutions such as administering fines up to $1,500 or fully sequestering the jurors.  The reality is that without intervention, the threat of Google mistrial and other jury misconduct will inevitably increase. Whether you are a lawyer, judge, juror, or defendant, you must decide if you are comfortable with Google deciding the fate of the accused.