In State v. Aguilar, 224 Ariz. 299 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2D10) the judge admonished the jurors at the beginning of trial to "not consult any source, such as . . . the [I]nternet for information," and then reminded the jury to observe the admonition throughout the trial. However, two jurors conducted Internet research on the legal definitions of terms in the court's final instructions, communicated their research to other jurors, and three additional jurors considered the research before joining the other jurors in unanimously convicting the defendant of attempted first degree murder.
The superior court found the State had "defeated the presumption of prejudice by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the [Internet definitions] considered by the jury . . . did not taint the jury's verdicts," and denied Appellants' motions.
The reviewing court ordered a new trial after considering the following factors which should be considered: (1) The importance of the words; (2) The extent to which the legal and dictionary definitions differ; and (3) The extent to which the jury discussed and emphasized the extrajudicial definitions. Id. at 302-306.
For subscription based briefing and sample instructions on this and related issues see:
Forecite NationalÔ
The Shellow Instructions
Forecite CaliforniaÔ
