GAVEL GAMUT
By Jim Redwine
www.jamesmredwine.com
(Week of 14 July 2025)
LUDDITES LOST
Just recently, a 13-year-old boy captured a photograph of a young girl and used Artificial Intelligence to remove her clothing and make her normal image pornographic. Then he put his modified, false depiction on the internet and caused the girl great emotional distress.
In June 2025, some person or persons used AI to impersonate United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio and sent false messages to several foreign officials.
During the Sean Diddy Combs trial one of the jurors may have accessed internet information about the trial.
Can Americans rely upon their government through its legal system to afford them fair trials when false or inadmissible, unvetted information is readily available on a smart phone? The answer is, Yes! However, trial judges must apply the tools the various State Supreme Courts, Constitutions and statutes provide.
There are probably several ways for judges to approach the rapidly developing dilemmas of how jury trials are affected by Social Media. Three major theories are:
(1) The ostrich method: pretend it does not exist. Well, it does, so ignoring it will not solve it;
(2) The Luddite solution where the legal system strikes back with Draconian controls in hopes jurors will be frightened back to pre-internet behavior. Workers of the early 19th century tried to halt mechanization in an effort to save their jobs. The Luddites who refused to adapt to the Industrial Revolution were swept into the dustbin of history; or,
(3) Adapt to the inevitable change in both technology and sociology.
State trial judges already have the education, training and legal tools to use the only rational approach to the irreversible momentum of the internet. We should call upon the lessons of thousands of years of history and our faith in our democratic system. Jurors, judges, the media and both real and artificial intelligence can operate a fair and efficient legal system using time-tested rules of due process applied with diligence and goodwill.
Technology may change but human nature has been formed over a few million years of hominoid fits and starts and two or three hundred thousand years of Homo sapiens experience and progress. And over about the past 250 years we have gone from gazing at the heavens to visiting them. Plus, over the past 100 years we have gone from curing polio and small pox to creating artificial limbs. Science has been good to us even if we take pause at the levels of death and destruction it has enabled. We just need to keep progressing before we exterminate ourselves and AI might be a huge boost in that regard.
So, how does the legal system deal with Social Media and Jurors? By remaining true to our time-tested principles and having confidence our citizens who are called for jury duty will also. As we know, people usually respond positively to positive treatment and ethically to expectations of ethical behavior. Are there plenty of bad exceptions, absolutely. However, judges have the tools to weed those potential jurors out and to guide and encourage sitting jurors to eschew extraneous influence from outside forces.
In the end, judges must adhere to their honored principles and have faith so will jurors. Most jurors want to be fair and most likely will be if judges give them proper guidance, such as the following instructions:
The parties are entitled to jurors who approach this case with open minds and agree to keep their minds open until a verdict is reached. Jurors must be as free as humanly possible from bias, prejudice or, sympathy. Jurors must not be influenced by preconceived ideas as to facts or as to law.
… Until the conclusion of this trial, do not discuss this case with any other person, including family and friends. You should not read or listen to any media discussing this case nor research this case in any way, including through the internet or any other tools of technology. Nor should you use any of these means to communicate to others about the case. It is important that this case be decided solely on the evidence you receive in this courtroom.
Progress can be a huge benefit to us. We may not now be able to see the benefits, but we should approach the future relying on our lessons from the past.
For more Gavel Gamut articles go to www.jamesmredwine.com
