Judge throws book at grammatically challenged juror

[bob_kark]

From our friends at the BBC. The judge in the Moussaoui case repremanded a juror for looking up the definition for "aggravating" on an online dictionary. Which is funny because:

On Friday, she orally instructed them that "aggravating" meant to make something worse.

Seems like a pretty basic, yet descriptive definition to me... The funny thing is, the juror was already denied a dictionary earlier, yet felt the need to pursue it further. What a dandy.

 

[tkingdoll]

The judge was right to do that. There was a case recently that had to be thrown out of court because one of the jurors took it upon themselves to do a little internet research - they had to let the defendent go.

It's made perfectly clear to jurors that any external research by them could result in a mistrial.

Frankly, if you don't know what 'aggravating' means, you're too stupid to be on a jury anyway.

 

[Rob Lister]

here it would mean a mistrial, which in most cases means letting the person go for lack of interst.

do your laws differ?

 

[bob_kark]

Frankly, if you don't know what 'aggravating' means, you're too stupid to be on a jury anyway.

Yeah, it would be nice if they had a sign that said:

Your IQ must be this high to ride in the Jury Box.

 

[tkingdoll]

here it would mean a mistrial, which in most cases means letting the person go for lack of interst.

do your laws differ?

I think this case is a tad too high profile for that.

 

[kalen]

What aggravates me is there is more than one definition for that word.

 

[Manny]

I have to throw in with kalen here. Perhaps the person who asked was a moron or weak in English. But on the other hand, s/he is helping to decide whether someone lives or dies. I'm pleased that the person insisted on finding out the precise meaning of the word before applying it to the facts of the case.

S/he shoudn't have gone of on his or her own after the judge denied them a dictionary, of course -- heck, that was about the worst thing one could do, since legal definitions can differ significantly from dictionary defintions. But in turn, when a dictionary was requested the judge should proactively have offered to define any word they needed.

 

[Zep]

I suspect the ruling has nothing at all to do with the juror's supposed lack of vocabulary and all to do with "going online". I understand US juries are supposed to be sequestered, and not allowed be influenced by external commentary, particularly if the trial they are sitting on has a high public profile (and this one certainly does). So going online would certainly break that restriction, and thus open the way to a request for a mistrial.

 

[Cylinder]

S/he shoudn't have gone of on his or her own after the judge denied them a dictionary, of course -- heck, that was about the worst thing one could do, since legal definitions can differ significantly from dictionary defintions. But in turn, when a dictionary was requested the judge should proactively have offered to define any word they needed.

I suspect that the juror understands full well the common definition of the word and the consultation was for the same reason many link to dictionary entries on this very board - to make a fine point in a debate. This does not bode well for the prosecutor, IMO. I suspect we will hear something Monday if it is a death sentence with that probability declining dramatically as the week wears on.

 

[Manny]

Most definitely a possibility. Though I think I disagree with the conclusion. At least from the experience here, when someone starts linking to dictionary definitions it's either because the other person is stupid and the linker wishes to mock them or because the linker is losing the debate and needs to divert attention from that fact. So it could mean either thing there, too.

 

[Cylinder]

At least from the experience here, when someone starts linking to dictionary definitions it's either because the other person is stupid and the linker wishes to mock them or because the linker is losing the debate and needs to divert attention from that fact. So it could mean either thing there, too.

Sorry. When I claimed a fine point, I was using the "minute" meaning. If you'd take the time to drag out you OED...

Oh, hell - nevermind.

 

[Art Vandelay]

From our friends at the BBC. The judge in the Moussaoui case repremanded a juror for looking up the definition for "aggravating" on an online dictionary.

Hmm, "reprimanded" seems very different from "threw the book at".

Seems like a pretty basic, yet descriptive definition to me...

Yet hardly precise.

The judge was right to do that. There was a case recently that had to be thrown out of court because one of the jurors took it upon themselves to do a little internet research - they had to let the defendent go.

So if I'm on a jury, and the defendent is charged with a crime, and I look up the criminal code to see what it says about that crime, the case can be thrown out?

Frankly, if you don't know what 'aggravating' means, you're too stupid to be on a jury anyway.

De claro, porque la lengua oficial de los Estado Unidos es ingles, y los que no lo hablan no merecen participar en los instituciones civiles como jurados. Ademas, todos los que hablan ingles, pero no conocen palabras como <<aggravate>>, claramente son estupidos, en vez de simplemente tenidos vidas diferentes de lo que tiene tkingdoll.

S/he shoudn't have gone of on his or her own after the judge denied them a dictionary, of course -- heck, that was about the worst thing one could do, since legal definitions can differ significantly from dictionary defintions.

How do you know it was not an online legal dictionary that was consulted?

 

[Zep]

How do we know it wasn't Miss Thrasher's Emporium of Ping-Pong Paddles and Bouncing Balls for Discriminating Gentlemen? Or the BBC and CNN News articles on the case they are sitting on?

 

[Art Vandelay]

You really think that that's as likely as the possibility that someone wondering about the legal meaning of a word might look up the legal meaning?

 

[Skeptic]

I have to throw in with kalen here. Perhaps the person who asked was a moron or weak in English. But on the other hand, s/he is helping to decide whether someone lives or dies. I'm pleased that the person insisted on finding out the precise meaning of the word before applying it to the facts of the case.

That's not the point; the point is that going online for help about the trial can result in a mistrial. I agree the juror's intentions were probably innocent and honorable, but there are excellent reasons why such safeguards as "don't go on the internet to look for information when a juror" exist.

A few weeks ago there was someone here who said that in a courtroom they saw a small sign saying "no firearms", and a really big sign saying "NO BOOKS OR NEWSPAPERS ALLOWED". This was taken to mean the courts are more afraid of books than of guns.

Well, no really--it is simply that most people will know not to bring a gun to a courtroom, while many people *will* bring books or magazines to a boring trial. And if a juror so much as glances as one when in the box, you have a mistrail due to a juror having missed evidence.

 

[Zep]

You really think that that's as likely as the possibility that someone wondering about the legal meaning of a word might look up the legal meaning?

Being online, who knows for sure what the juror did or saw.

The problem being that, unsupervised, it is not possible to rule out any internet interaction of any sort. They could have accidentally or deliberately seen commentary and related information on their case that they should not be seeing. Or even had webmail contact with family or colleagues or any other people at all.

I would hardly be surprised that for such a sensitive and noteworthy case, the suspicion alone of the jury being influenced in some way could be grounds for a initiating a mistrial petition.

The only way I could see this not being an issue is that the "online lookup" involved a webservice restricted to specific legal information only (i.e. a local website only).

 

[tkingdoll]

So if I'm on a jury, and the defendent is charged with a crime, and I look up the criminal code to see what it says about that crime, the case can be thrown out?

Yes, absolutely. And it happens. It is made very, very clear to jurors that this is not allowed. All the information they are allowed to use to judge the case is the information they are given in the court room, so to seek any information outside of that, especially from a contaminated source like the internet, is to jeopordise the case.

Here's an article on the situation which references the case I spoke about in my earlier post: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1036630505766

Wilkinson declared a mistrial recently after a juror went on the Internet and discovered that an accused child molester faced a minimum of 17 years in prison if convicted. The juror thought that was "too excessive," Wilkinson says.

and

In Conway, S.C., a mistrial was declared last year in the first trial of Regina McKnight, who, in a widely publicized case, was accused of killing her fetus by using crack cocaine during her pregnancy. Two jurors had used the Internet to look up medical information. She was convicted in a second trial. South Carolina v. Regina McKnight, No. 00-GS-26-3330.

 

[bob_kark]

Hmm, "reprimanded" seems very different from "threw the book at".

I couldn't miss using that in the title, I'm too weak.

Yet hardly precise.

How would you define it in that sense? If the juror had a question as to the meaning of the term, he could request additional information from the judge rather than look up the term online. I believe that circumventing the judge's prior ruling against providing a dictionary is not worth causing a mistrial in a case as important as this one is.

So if I'm on a jury, and the defendent is charged with a crime, and I look up the criminal code to see what it says about that crime, the case can be thrown out?

It can actually. Its the judge's responsibility to interpret the law and instruct the jury accordingly. If a jury member has a question about the law or of any definition, they are to pass a note to the baliff and the baliff takes the note to the judge.

How do you know it was not an online legal dictionary that was consulted?

It makes no difference.

ETA: Damn you Teek!

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I have to throw in with kalen here. Perhaps the person who asked was a moron or weak in English. But on the other hand, s/he is helping to decide whether someone lives or dies. I'm pleased that the person insisted on finding out the precise meaning of the word before applying it to the facts of the case.

S/he shoudn't have gone of on his or her own after the judge denied them a dictionary, of course -- heck, that was about the worst thing one could do, since legal definitions can differ significantly from dictionary defintions. But in turn, when a dictionary was requested the judge should proactively have offered to define any word they needed.

Where there is more than one definition of a word, you are instructed to use the *legal* definition that the judge gives you as part of the COurt's charge. That is why they don't want people going to unknown sources and using definitions that neither the lawyers nor judge necessarily have seen or approved. I doubt any judge would completely refuse to supply a definition if a juror expressed doubt or confusion.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Being online, who knows for sure what the juror did or saw.

That's a rather silly argument. That's like saying "Yeah, my wife was just talking with the guy, but I don't know if they had sex before I arrived, so I'm going to divorce her". If your problem is that the juror could have seen inappropriate material, then the fact that he went online is irrelevant. The mere fact that he had the opportunity to go on the internet is enough for there to be a problem. As long as we’re doing what if's, what if the other jurors went on the internet without us knowing about it?

Yes, absolutely. And it happens. It is made very, very clear to jurors that this is not allowed.

Wow, that’s really f***-ed up. So if the government claims that there’s a law against X, when in fact there is no such law, and I know there is no such law, I’m supposed to just vote guilty because them’s the rules? What if a juror had read a defintion of “aggravating” before the trial? Would it be okay to base the decision on that?

It can actually. Its the judge's responsibility to interpret the law and instruct the jury accordingly. If a jury member has a question about the law or of any definition, they are to pass a note to the baliff and the baliff takes the note to the judge.

And if the judge decides to lie, then jury is supposed to just play along?

It makes no difference.

So if the legislature passes a law defining a word in a certain manner, the jury is not supposed to consider that? It seems to me that that’s a ridiculous supremacy of the judiciary over the legislature. Why do judges get to tell jurors what a definition of a word is, but the legislature is not allowed to do so, except through a judge?