
A jury foreman in a manslaughter murder case in Florida has caused a mistrial with his iPhone. How? He looked up the word “prudence” during deliberations. On Encarta.
The details of the case: A man in his 60s shot his 19-year old neighbour during a heated dog-walking argument. The older man argued that he feared for his life at the time, and the defence argued that his decision to shoot the teen was “prudent”, i.e. legally viable. The foreman looked up the word “prudence” on his iPhone to help inform his peers of what exactly they were considering. Which is a big no-no, according to the Court of Appeals:
After the appellant was convicted, a juror contacted defence counsel and claimed that during a break from jury deliberations, the jury foreperson used a smartphone, specifically an iPhone, to look up the definition of “prudence.” The court granted a motion to interview jurors and determined, after an evidentiary hearing, that there was juror misconduct based on the fact that the jury foreperson utilized his smartphone to search an internet site, Encarta, for the definition of “prudent” or “prudence.” The foreperson shared this definition with other jurors during deliberations.
Instead of a conviction, the accused murderer will get a fresh trial. All thanks to one imprudent use of technology. [Image credit: Internet Cases via Geekosystem]


















Kalem
Friday, September 17, 2010 at 1:16 PMFor those wondering, the definition of prudent is;
Acting with or showing care and thought for the future.
Tha names not bob
Friday, September 17, 2010 at 2:01 PMSo was the problem that he accessed an external site or that he shared the definition of prudence with the other jurors?
Captain Pajama Shark
Friday, September 17, 2010 at 2:51 PMOK, so if you don’t know the meanings of the words being said, how can you be an effective juror?
What would be the process if you wanted to find out the meaning in legitimately?…. Raise your hand and say “excuse me your honor, what does that mean”.
or maybe “Huh?”.
Would people not lose faith in the jury system if they couldn’t understand the proceedings correctly.
Or would the juror not speak up for fear of ridicule.