Open juries part 1

I am increasingly seeing signs that jurors are using their phones to google information relevant to the trial they are sitting in. 

Some would say that judges can confiscate google machines and sequester juries.  I disagree. I simply point out that punitive solutions can't last long; many people seek information like plants seek sunlight.

I expect the legal and judicial world to be turned upside down by this development.  More than 400 years of jurisprudence and our own Bill of Rights are the product of efforts to make the judicial system fair.  Technology is changing all the ground rules of evidence admissibility.

First, the legal Luddites aren't going to stop this trend with any new laws, punishments, rewards or opprobrium.  I know they'll waste their time and ours but I also know in advance that they'll fail.

Second, deal with it.  The two biggest problems are common sense and misinformation.

The problem of common sense is that nearly all material excluded from trials is of the nature that this trial is about this set of events.  Did the burglar commit this burglary?  Common sense says a person who committed many burglaries in the past, probably committed this one.  The law says juries must ignore the past burglaries in the trial. Technology is the friend of common sense in this matter.

Consequence: Get out of prison and you had better change your ways and be able to prove it. 

Common sense also says that a woman riding in a car with a man who gets out of the car and, unknowingly to the woman, commits armed robbery, is guilty as an accomplice.  Under some laws the punishment is automatically 10 years in prison.  No jury will find her guilty knowing the extreme punishment.  Common sense will prevail again.

Consequence: harsh mandatory sentences will result in more 'not guilty' verdicts.

The problem of misinformation. Many people believe that lie detectors are reliable.  They aren't but with google it is likely the results of a lie detector will get to jury members. Positive and negative lie detector tests results can be wrong, badly wrong.  

Consequence: judges and lawyers will have to over-inform juries about all relevant information they may get or have.

Considering the vast misinformation under the rubric of science, there is a big future problem.  So far I can't say anything good about the way the judicial system has handled scientific misinformation currently.