New Trial Ordered After Juror Does Her Own Internet Research
The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals in Thompson v. Krantz (2006 OK CIV APP 60, at www.oscn.net, Slip Op., May 9, 2006, J. Reif), recently affirmed the decision of a trial court that may have recognized, at least sub silento, that Internet research may be just as persuasive to jurors as news media were once presumed to be.
The juror in question researched the medical questions presented in a case she was hearing and reported some of her findings to other members of the jury panel. The plaintiff won a verdict at trial, but after the trial, discussion among jurors about the Internet research became known, and the defendant sought and received a new trial. The plaintiff could not prove to the appellate court “beyond all reasonable doubt” that the trial court’s decision to grant a new trial was an abuse of discretion, so the order vacating the jury verdict was affirmed.
During my legal career, jurors were not allowed to take notes of proceedings, but that rule has mostly gone by the wayside (although some judges will not allow jurors to take their notes into deliberations). So it is important to note that in this case, the appellate court carefully looked at the potential impact the orally reported Internet research had on jury deliberations before it affirmed the trial court’s decision to treat it as significant in deliberations.
