Google mistrials: a cornerstone of the American legal system is that judges decide what evidence a jury gets to see and hear. Now, with iPhones and BlackBerrys in their pockets, some jurors are doing their own research. Is justice being denied?

• Author: Schwartz, John
• Position: NATIONAL

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Last month, a juror in a big federal drug trial in Florida admitted to the judge that he had been researching the case on the Internet, violating not only the judge's instructions but also centuries of legal rules. And when the judge questioned the rest of the jury, he got an even bigger shock.

It turns out eight other jurors had been doing the same thing. The judge had no choice but to declare a mistrial, wasting eight weeks of work by prosecutors and defense lawyers.

"We were stunned," says defense lawyer Peter Raben. "It's the first time modern technology struck us in that fashion, and it hit us right over the head."

It probably won't be the last "Google mistrial": Around the country, the use of BlackBerrys and iPhones by jurors gathering and sending out information about cases is wreaking havoc on trials, upending deliberations and infuriating judges.

Also last month, a company asked an Arkansas court to overturn a $12.6 million civil judgment against it, claiming that a juror used Twitter to send updates during the trial. And in Pennsylvania, defense lawyers in the corruption trial of a former State Senator, Vincent J. Fumo, demanded just before the verdict that the judge declare a mistrial because a juror posted updates on the case on Twitter and Facebook. (The judge let the deliberations continue, the jury found Fumo guilty, and his lawyers say they'll use the postings as grounds for an appeal.)

THE JUDGE DECIDES

The rules are pretty simple: Jurors cannot seek information about a case on their own inside or outside of the courtroom. They must reach a verdict based on only the facts the judge has decided are admissible, and they are not supposed to see--or even be aware of--evidence that the judge has excluded as prejudicial or for other reasons.

But now, using their cell phones, they can look up anything on the Web, violating the legal system's complex rules of evidence. They can also tell their friends what's happening in the jury room, though they're supposed to keep their opinions and deliberations secret.

A juror on a lunch or even a bathroom break can find out all sorts of details about a case: Google Maps can show how long it takes to drive from Point A to Point B, Wikipedia can help explain a medical condition, and news sites can write about defendants and evidence that the judge has excluded.

"It's really impossible to control it," says Douglas L. Keene, president of the American Society of Trial...