It was only a matter of time before this happened. A juror decided that it was a good idea to research the defendant in the case. Lacy Jolee Boles already had her trial delayed due to COVID. Now, years later, her case was finally going to trial “on charges of malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault in the death of her husband, Daniel Akers.” Now, according to Court TV, the case has been further delayed due to the actions of a juror who decided to research the defendant on ChatGPT.
We all know that jurors are explicitly told not to engage in any research about the case. Unfortunately, not only did this juror decide to violate those rules, but they also chose to contaminate the entire prospective jury pool by telling the other jurors what they had found. It is not common for a judge to hold a juror in contempt, but understandably, the judge decided to do so in this case.
It seems to me, if judges are not already telling potential jurors that they are not allowed to use AI to research the cases they might hear, such instructions should be added. It should be clear to jurors that when they are told not to research a case, that includes AI, but apparently, this isn’t the case. As a result, judges and courts will need to be even more explicit.