Abstract
This article examines a practice whereby lawyers use the internet to research prospective jurors with a view to challenge. It is unclear how common the practice is in New Zealand, but the increasing availability of personal information online means that lawyers have a plethora of personal information about prospective jurors at their fingertips. Currently peremptory challenges are exercised in a discriminatory fashion on the basis of broad stereotypes. It is argued that pretrial research by lawyers on prospective jurors could secure a more impartial jury by providing a mechanism for uncovering attitudinal biases or predispositions, meaning the challenges will be exercised on the basis of stereotypes alone less often. Pretrial research by lawyers could also remedy the disparity of resources between prosecution and defence by providing an independent vehicle for obtaining information. This article discusses the benefits of pretrial research of prospective jurors and argues that any drawbacks are limited. Potential guidelines for lawyers conducting pretrial research around the collection, use, retention and disclosure of information are proposed. This article concludes that pretrial research of prospective jurors serves to protect, rather than undermine, the fundamental right of all parties to a fair trial.
Highlights
This article examines a practice whereby lawyers use the internet to research prospective jurors with a view to challenge
It is argued that pretrial research by lawyers on prospective jurors could secure a more impartial jury by providing a mechanism for uncovering attitudinal biases or predispositions, meaning the challenges will be exercised on the basis of stereotypes alone less often
The use of the internet to research prospective jurors with a view to peremptory challenge has received little attention in New Zealand and, as acknowledged earlier, it is unclear just how widespread or common the practice is among New Zealand lawyers
Summary
The use of technology by all parties in court proceedings has raised issues for courts in New Zealand and abroad. Research by jurors, coined the problem of the "Googling Juror",2 has received a lot of attention in recent times.3 Jurors conducting their own internet research of cases in the United Kingdom have been convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to imprisonment.. P v R, a case before the New Zealand Court of Appeal in 2012 concerned a convicted defendant (P) who used the internet to research the personal background of the foreperson of the jury that found him guilty.. This article argues that, in contrast, pretrial research of jurors by lawyers with a view to peremptory challenge could serve to ensure, rather than undermine, a fair trial for all parties involved in a proceeding. 11 P v R, above n 1, at [21]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
