The big push a few years ago was the emergence of organized advocates for juror nullification. There were sincere and serious arguments that the ability of a jury to nullify a conviction was not merely permitted by law, but a foundation of the jury system. Yet judges instructed juries that they are to apply the law as given them by the court and not let emotion stay them from their duty.

Of course, one aspect of nullification its advocates never really appreciated is that if jurors believed themselves entitled to ignore law, the outcome might well be that they ignored doctrinal instructions like the presumption of innocence or the burden of proof and convict for reasons less savory than there was no reasonable doubt the defendant committed the crime. The assumption that nullifying jurors would always side with the defense might have been a bit naive.

Jurors have long harbored a belief that they weren’t being told the real deal and so they would try to read between the lines of evidence to find what they believed to be the hidden “truth.” This isn’t meant in a bad way. They took their duty seriously and sincerely want to make sure they do the “right” thing, whatever that may be. What this reflected is a belief that the system would fail to achieve “justice” because of all its rules and laws, and so it was left to them to figure it out.

This lack of faith in the legal system and its “rules” (put in quote to note the word in its pejorative sense) gives rise to two beliefs. The first is that the rules are there to deny the jury access to all the evidence, all the facts, all the “truth.” The second is that they are entitled to disregard the rules because they serve a higher purpose. As long as you believe your motives are pure, no law, no rules, no judge can constrain you. Or so Stephen Meile believed.

Juror Number 7 was one of 12 jurors on a federal criminal trial held in Camden federal court before Judge Kugler. Before and during the trial, Juror Number 7 and the other jurors were instructed repeatedly, both in writing and verbally, not to conduct any research about the case, including through use of the Internet. During a recess in the trial, Juror Number 7 conducted internet research into evidence in the case. He then shared his findings with the other jurors during deliberations, causing a mistrial. The fine represents the court’s costs associated with empanelling the jury for the trial.

Meile was selected and served as Juror #7 in the case of US v. Kevin Ruiz-Quezada before Judge Robert B. Kugler in the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage. The jurors were instructed, orally and in writing, a number of times that they are to decide that case based solely on the evidence presented in the courtroom. They were instructed not to research the case on the internet. They were told not to do it.

Meile did it. Meile did it and then shared his research with the rest of the panel.

Juror #12 snitched, as the jurors were instructed to do, and after questioning Meile, the judge declared a mistrial. Meile blew up the trial during deliberations, which meant it had to be done again. Judge Kruger issued an order to show cause why Meile should not be held in contempt for violating the court’s instructions and pay a fine of $11,000, which is said to be the cost associated with empanelling a new jury.

That’s a lot of money.

There are very good reasons why Meile’s research was a very bad idea and thing to do. Legally, there are rules of evidence to prevent unreliable or improper evidence from being used at trial. It’s an adversary system, such that the defense lawyer has the right to challenge evidence against the defendant, which can’t be done when the evidence comes from Google in the dark of night.*

On a practical level, it’s also a really bad thing to do. Whether the side is right or left, does evidence come with a partisan mischaracterization, a spin from the Federalist or the Nation explaining what the “truth” is? Was that what happened here? No clue, as there is no information about what Meile googled, where he searched or what he found. For all we know, he was checking on the tensile strength of 302 stainless steel, and nothing more nefarious than some technical detail that nobody thought to include in the trial evidence but mattered to Meile. So let’s not attribute any particular motivation to his effort.

Yet, you can’t ignore the instructions no matter how many people have caused you to believe that trials are shams designed to protect the privileged and oppress the marginalized. It’s not that the legal system functions so very well, but that each individual juror doesn’t get to reinvent it in whatever bold and transformative way he sees fit at the moment. This isn’t about some adoration of rules, but about the fear that each individual juror has some entitlement to ignore the rules and do whatever he or she believes is a good idea. As much as the rules may suck, I have far less trust in the genius of jurors inventing a better way to serve “justice.”

But lawyers and judges are dumb, dishonest and disreputable. The system is racist, sexist, loaded against the oppressed and in favor of the cops. “Something must be done,” you say. Perhaps, but not this. As bad as the system may be, don’t presume that whatever idea pops into your head is a better idea. And more to the point, not only have you put the defendant  (and his lawyer) through another trial; not only have you squandered the time of the other jurors who likely had something else they would prefer doing; not only have you cost everyone time, money and aggravation. You could end up paying a part of the bill at $11,000, which, as previously noted, is a lot of money. Is it worth it?

*A rando on the twitters reacted to this bit of news:

Sadly typical. Judges think a robe immunized them from normal human emotion, so telling jurors to remain ignorant seems reasonable, rather than insane.

“You, peon, might make the wrong decision if you knew all the facts, so you only get to know what I, in my majesty, allow…”

There’s a lot of this sort of cynicism and antagonism to the system out there, reinforcing the belief that the legal system is a corrupt tool of oppression and justifying their refusal to follow the instructions of the court.