Jurors are required to base their verdicts exclusively on the evidence presented to them at trial, since outside information may violate the substantive norms embodied in the rules of evidence for example, that hearsay is unreliable, and that evidence should be subjected to the adversarial processes of cross-examination and rebuttal. Accordingly, courts have historically admonished jurors against conducting outside research. Some degree of noncompliance has always been a problem albeit a minor one with stray jurors looking up ambiguous terms in dictionaries or visiting accident scenes, for instance. Today, however, the Internet has made that problem dramatically worse. In a recent high-profile trial, 75 percent of the jurors were discovered to have independently conducted their own Internet research on the trial.
Responses to the ubiquity of Internet-based outside research have varied. Courts have, for example, tried confiscating mobile phones or banning their use during trial an unpopular measure ineffectual against research conducted during after-trial hours. Other courts have tried amending their boilerplate juror admonitions to explicitly mention Internet research. But such amendments overlook the fact that many jurors do not realize that conducting Internet searches for the names of the defendants constitutes obtaining evidence, rather than being a mere benign manifestation of the unconscious habit of looking up something about which one is curious. Using even more explicit instructions as one judge does, enjoining jurors not to "read about the subject matter or parties of the case on blogs, Internet news sites, or social media" faces an important obstacle: Even jurors who fully understand the scope of impermissible research may be motivated to conduct their own investigations by a sense that it is their moral duty to conduct independent investigations before rendering a decision. Some jurors believe that, despite the judge's legal instructions, they have a higher duty to arrive at a fair judgment using all facts obtainable by any means whatsoever. A complete solution to the problem of jurors' independent investigations must address, therefore, jurors' perceived "moral duty" to render verdicts based on complete information.
Rather than discourage jurors' sense of moral duty, courts should strive to redirect it, educating jurors as to the powerful reasons why it is their duty to avoid, rather than seek out, outside information. In particular, preliminary instruction, now dedicated only to admonishing jurors as to what behavior is prohibited, should be used to explain to jurors why their access to information is limited, and to persuade jurors that not all information is helpful, and that some is positively unhelpful, to their decision-making process. Otherwise, jurors' sense of moral duty will continue to be misdirected, and restrictions on accessing information will continue to be perceived as, at best, a set of arbitrary rules and, at worst, a subversion of justice.
Which one of the following does the author suggest might be perceived as "a subversion of justice" (end of the passage)?
- the way jurors' outside research compromises the fairness of their verdicts
- way jurors' outside research violates the binding instructions given to them by the judge
- the way that restrictions on accessing information limit jurors' freedom in theory but not in practice
- the way that restrictions on accessing information tend to disadvantage one party of the trial more than the other
- the way that the ban on outside research requires jurors to overlook potentially relevant evidence when rendering their verdicts
Answer(s): C
Explanation:
The author suggests that jurors may perceive the restrictions on accessing outside information as arbitrary or as a subversion of justice because these restrictions limit their ability to seek out all relevant information. This perception arises from their belief that it is their moral duty to consider all available facts. The author emphasizes that such restrictions might be viewed as undermining justice if jurors are not educated about why the rules exist and the importance of sticking to the evidence presented in the trial.