The retin-a for sale reported rates of heart disease among Black and African American cialis online sales individuals are slightly higher than in white individuals. Daylio expands clozapine no prescription beyond mood tracking, allowing people to jot down a few viagra non prescription thoughts or keep a detailed private journal. For more information atrovent online cheap about taking Lyrica during pregnancy, see the "Lyrica and pregnancy" kenalog prescription section above. This is why it is crucial for doctors buy generic mirapex to assess potential causes of iron deficiency and not just cheapest clomid treat the symptoms. PRP shows potential in treating various skeletal viagra purchase conditions, particularly those involving joints, tendons, and ligaments. UC is alesse (ovral l) no prescription also a risk factor for some life threatening conditions, such cheap viagra on internet as colon cancer and toxic megacolon. They will then move price of atenolol the device around to different positions to get different views order griseofulvin of the stomach or other areas of the abdomen. However, buy ventolin without prescription a person with these symptoms may benefit from further clinical examination.

Jury trials are a carefully managed game of information control. The jurors are screened to try to weed out people who know too much ahead of time. Only certain kinds of information are admissible, and whatever is presented by one side can be challenged by the other. The jurors are supposed to isolate themselves from other sources of information — when they go home to their families at night, they are supposed not to talk about the ongoing events or to try to find our more about them. In extreme cases, when it is just too likely that information will assault them by accident, they may be sequestered.

The digital explosion makes such information quarantine an unnatural condition at best, and perhaps an impossible one. And indeed, the New York Times reports today that jurors are routinely using search engines to find out more about the events they are adjudicating. (As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials are Popping Up) In a recent trial, a judge at first hoped that only a single juror had been using Google to check things out — in that case, he could throw the juror off the jury and continue the trial.

But then the judge found that eight other jurors had done the same thing — conducting Google searches on the lawyers and the defendant, looking up news articles about the case, checking definitions on Wikipedia and searching for evidence that had been specifically excluded by the judge. One juror, asked by the judge about the research, said, “Well, I was curious,” according to Mr. Raben.

Mistrial. But the impulse is so easy to imagine. I myself was once on a jury trial in a reckless driving case, in which the defendant was charged with careening down residential streets at high speeds. A crucial piece of evidence was a hubcap coming off as he screeched around a sharp corner. The jury deliberations lasted overnight. Were the trial taking place today, I could use Google Street View after I got home to see what that corner looks like.

Did anyone see this coming? Not the attorneys in the case, apparently.

“We were stunned,” said a defense lawyer, Peter Raben, who was told by the jury that he had been on the verge of winning the case. “It’s the first time modern technology struck us in that fashion, and it hit us right over the head.”

Hit over the head by the force of the digital explosion. One minute you have a stable, reliable social institution that is the descendant of centuries of experience, as good and as fair a system as democratic societies know how to create. A minute later, you have to wonder if it can survive at all, since it is premised on conditions that no longer exist.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 18th, 2009 at 9:39 am and is filed under Miscellaneous, Social computing, The explosion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.