Jurors May Consider Their Own Life Experiences in Analyzing Evidence But Not Share Specialized Knowledge

 Jurors are not robots (or AI) therefore they are not expected to disregard all of their life experiences in analyzing the evidence.  To do so is impossible.  However, if a juror has specialized knowledge or experiences, they may not share them with their fellow jurors during deliberations.  For example, in a medical malpractice case involving an alleged faulty knee operation, a juror cannot share "in my knee surgery the doctor didn't do ...like Dr. Defendant."  Or a plumber on a jury could not share his expertise if the negligence at issue is related to his field of expertise.  (I cannot imagine why the plumber would not be excused from service). A juror that does so commits misconduct.

Check out: To Be "Impartial" Must a Juror Reject His Own Life Experiences? 54 UIC J. Marshal L. Rev. 627 (2021) at p. 644

Experts in the Jury Room, 69 Stan. L. Rev. 911 (2017) 

In re Malone, 911 P.2d 486-487 (Cal. 1996) (psychologist juror committed misconduct in critiquing polygraph study admitted in evidence) 

Using Geofence to Discover Juror Social Media Activity Requires Warrant

 I discovered that a company selling software for social media searches published in a blog that an inquiring law enforcement should use software and a geofence to discover juror social media activity while at the courthouse during a trial.  This is an interesting suggestion but fails to mention one important requirement: LAW ENFORCEMENT MUST ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A CRIME WITHIN THE GEOFENCE AND OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT FOR PHONE RECORDS.  

For example, if a burglary occurs at a business, law enforcement can seek a warrant for cellphone activity within the close vicinity of the store during the possible hours of the burglary.  Then they can obtain the cellphone records from the phone carrier.  But there must be probable cause that a crime was committed within the geofence and the scope of the warrant must be limited in time and location.

Jurors Must Not Deliberate Until So Instructed By Judge

 Standard instructions to the jury prior to the hearing of evidence include that they must not discuss the case among themselves until after final instructions and submission of the case to them.  The Georgia Court of Appeals in McCloud v. Georgia, decided 5-1-24, rendered a decision in a case where a bailiff noticed juror notes on a whiteboard in the jury room.  The bailiff told the jurors they must not discuss the case until the judge told them to deliberate.  However, the bailiff also erased the whiteboard but should have at least taken a photo of the notes and informed the judge so the judge could deal with the issue.  The defendant was convicted.  On appeal he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel in that his attorney did not seek a mistrial once the "deliberations" issue was revealed.  The appellate court found this was not a basis for ineffective assistance of counsel as trial counsel felt the trial was going well and that a second trial would not likely have a better result, expressly waived any objection and only sought a curative instruction.  Perhaps defense counsel would have addressed the issue differently had counsel seen the notes, but that would have revealed how some of the jurors were thinking (which is forbidden).

Source: National Center for State Courts