FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W331336723> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W331336723 endingPage "831" @default.
• W331336723 startingPage "809" @default.
• W331336723 abstract "Independent juror research is an old problem for jury trials. It invites potentially prejudicial, irrelevant, and inaccurate information to guide jury decisionmaking. At the same time, independent juror research compromises our adversarial system by preventing parties from responding to all the evidence under consideration and obfuscating the record on which the jury's decision is made. These threats have only increased in the internet age, where inappropriate sources of information are ubiquitous and where improper access is hard to detect. Nevertheless, courts and parties continue to engage in the same inhibitory measures they have employed for decades. This Note argues for change by providing a new conceptual framework for thinking about and categorizing responses to the problem: (court that channel independent juror research and the impulses that govern it into something productive within our adversarial system), (court designed to eliminate independent juror research and its effects by blocking and punishing access to independent sources of information), and (the parties' attempts to similarly stamp out this conduct and its effects). After first analyzing the problem of juror research, this Note argues that the old-fashioned system of and is an inadequate response to the growing problem. Although this Note offers insight about specific and that may continue to be useful in tackling the challenges of independent juror research-for example, by arguing that trials should be prerecorded and videotaped-it ultimately contends that the traditional framework must be supplemented by rules, which will promote a more active jury. This Note concludes by endorsing two specific rules: allowing the jury to ask questions (of the judge, witnesses, and parties) and providing the jury with an electronic record.IntroductionIndependent juror research has long been an issue in jury trials.1 Examples include jurors looking up legal terminology and principles,2 investigat- ing details about the parties in their cases,3 and verifying expert testimony or factual information presented at trial through their own inquiries.4 The problem has taken new life, both in the academic literature5 and in the courts6 because the internet and portable electronic devices allow jurors to easily and discreetly conduct such research.7 In light of the rising tide of independent juror research facilitated by technology, courts need to consider whether the current safeguards against such conduct adequately preserve the integrity of the modern jury trial.This Note argues that, to address the problem of independent juror re- search in the internet age, courts should adopt liberalized procedural and evidentiary that allow juries to take a more active role in judicial pro- ceedings. Part I explains how, under the current regime, independent juror research is antithetical, and consequently detrimental, to the integrity of tri- als in our adversarial system. It argues that, given the internet's ubiquity, the problem of juror research has become more pressing than ever before, and it highlights this development by reviewing a recent case and the general re- sponse of courts. Part II evaluates these responses and classifies them as negative rules (court designed to eliminate juror research by block- ing access to sources or by disincentivizing access to such sources) and outside mechanisms (parties' attempts to do the same). It recom- mends some reforms with regard to and (most notably by arguing for prerecorded videotaped trials) but ultimately contends that while such and are valuable, they are insuf- ficient to adequately quell independent juror research; thus, positive rules (court that transform the impulse underlying juror research from something that undermines the system into something that undergirds it) are a necessary supplement. …" @default.
• W331336723 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W331336723 creator A5056386663 @default.
• W331336723 date "2014-03-01" @default.
• W331336723 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W331336723 title "Responding to Independent Juror Research in the Internet Age: Positive Rules, Negative Rules, and Outside Mechanisms" @default.
• W331336723 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W331336723 type Work @default.
• W331336723 sameAs 331336723 @default.
• W331336723 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W331336723 countsByYear W3313367232014 @default.
• W331336723 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W331336723 hasAuthorship W331336723A5056386663 @default.
• W331336723 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W331336723 hasConcept C110875604 @default.
• W331336723 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W331336723 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W331336723 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W331336723 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W331336723 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W331336723 hasConcept C182306322 @default.
• W331336723 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W331336723 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W331336723 hasConcept C2776119841 @default.
• W331336723 hasConcept C37736160 @default.
• W331336723 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W331336723 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W331336723 hasConceptScore W331336723C10138342 @default.
• W331336723 hasConceptScore W331336723C110875604 @default.
• W331336723 hasConceptScore W331336723C136764020 @default.
• W331336723 hasConceptScore W331336723C144024400 @default.
• W331336723 hasConceptScore W331336723C144133560 @default.
• W331336723 hasConceptScore W331336723C15744967 @default.
• W331336723 hasConceptScore W331336723C17744445 @default.
• W331336723 hasConceptScore W331336723C182306322 @default.
• W331336723 hasConceptScore W331336723C190253527 @default.
• W331336723 hasConceptScore W331336723C199539241 @default.
• W331336723 hasConceptScore W331336723C2776119841 @default.
• W331336723 hasConceptScore W331336723C37736160 @default.
• W331336723 hasConceptScore W331336723C41008148 @default.
• W331336723 hasConceptScore W331336723C77805123 @default.
• W331336723 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W331336723 hasLocation W3313367231 @default.
• W331336723 hasOpenAccess W331336723 @default.
• W331336723 hasPrimaryLocation W3313367231 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W109756873 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W1508406497 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W1511052197 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W1537472475 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W1541997281 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W1581232243 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W1937124833 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W194414014 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W2053953988 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W2138589018 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W2161830727 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W2261541206 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W2279696164 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W2520134536 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W3110334679 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W3111798547 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W3121813871 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W3121872426 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W3183012814 @default.
• W331336723 hasRelatedWork W196805545 @default.
• W331336723 hasVolume "112" @default.
• W331336723 isParatext "false" @default.
• W331336723 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W331336723 magId "331336723" @default.
• W331336723 workType "article" @default.