Research In the Courtroom

When I say "research" in this sense, I am not referring to pouring over volume after volume of statutes and case law in a law library.  I'm referring to what is known as "extrinsic research," which is any supplemental research conducted going beyond the scope of testimony, statements, statutes, or case law mentioned in the courtroom.  According to Blog Law Online, the repercussions of extrinsic research differ depending on your role in a legal proceeding.

If you are a juror, you are never allowed to conduct extrinsic research and must base judgment solely upon evidence presented during the trial.  That being said, it is more acceptable for judges to use extrinisc research when rendering their opinions in non-juried trials.  This sort of makes sense, considering a judge has the legal knowledge requisite to forming a more complete opinion based upon not only evidence presented to him, but upon his own research and logically drawn conclusions.  People seem to have mixed feelings about judges doing so, particularly because a judge in a non-juried trial serves the same function as the jury.  He is to be convinced that one side is right and the other is wrong, the only difference being the fact that there is only one person who needs convincing. 

Personally, I see that there may be some benefits to allowing extrinsic research.  It is possible that a little extra research may help make arguments less one-sided by providing valuable information that was either left out, or slightly misrepresented by the attorney presenting it.  A good example would be the use of results gathered from gas chromotography technology which is commonly admitted as evidence in cases involving DUI's.  There are a number of factors (listed here) which can contribute to a descrepancy about how reliable such a test is.  Needless to say, the State prosecuting a DUI case will present this gas chromotography test as a fullproof, reliable method of testing blood alcohol content, when in fact its reliability may have been negatively affected by any of those factors mentioned on the Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney blog. 

Though some may see the above mentioned example of extrinsic research as a way of making a trial-by-peers more fair, I also see the disadvantages presented by jurors doing their own research.  If we accept the fact that jurors do not possess the training that attorneys and judges have in terms of drawing logical conclusions from various sources, jurors may be swayed incorrectly by a source that it less than reliable.  Further, even if the source IS reliable, there is an increase in the chance of a trial resulting in a hung jury, since each juror drew their own conclusion, based upon their own research.

As a result, I feel that it is absolutely more acceptable for a judge in a non-juried trial to conduct his own research.  A judge will more than likely to select a reliable source for any extrinsic research, and his opinion would be the only one that matters, there would be no hung jury.  Lastly, the legal training to draw logical conclusions from facts presented that "necessarily follow" goes far in justifying the use of extrinsic research in non-juried trials.