One of the first lectures I received in law school was about how jury trials had changed over about 2,500 years; they hadn’t. According to my law professor, if we budding attorneys had walked into the courtroom in Athens for the trial of Socrates in 399 B.C., we would have easily understood the proceeding. Socrates was charged with corrupting Athenian youth with his views on the prevalent religion and government. He was convicted by a jury of about 500 citizens. Socrates was prosecuted by three senators and he defended himself. In other words, that court of over 2,000 years ago functioned like most courts of the 21st century, until the advent of smart telephones, artificial intelligence and rapidly changing electronic technology.
Unlike the practice of medicine, according to our law professor, that a physician of modern times would not even recognize, until recently the legal profession stoically struggled to deliver justice about the same way our Stone Age progenitors did. As science reached for the stars, the Star Chamber was right at home with the law. Most lawyers, judges and juries sought just verdicts, but often did so with quill pens, arcane fixtures and cloistered proceedings. Well, those honored, if often questioned, days have recently crashed upon the shoals of instant and ubiquitous information and misinformation. And much as the art world and the defense industry are wringing their hands and racing to keep up with machines gone mad, the legal profession is struggling to preserve the First Amendment’s guarantees of Freedom of Speech and the Press along with the Sixth Amendment’s guarantees of Due Process and a Fair Trial.
For thousands of years societies have confidently relied upon jurors to hear cases without being influenced by prejudicial information from outside of the court. Today, judges cannot just order jurors to not read newspapers, or listen to radio or television stories about a case. Jurors in 2025 are just like virtually every other child, teenager, adult and elderly person; everyone has a smart phone to which they are addicted. All the judicial admonishments judges can think of will not defeat the deep-seated need by jurors to “tune in and turn on” and, most likely buy into, the often incorrect information about practically anything, including “facts” about an on-going case.
The Founding Fathers most feared centralized governmental power and believed the best defense to it was for the public to have almost unfettered Freedom of Speech and for the media to be almost immunized from governmental restraint. Of course, America’s legal system has adapted many times to changes in our society. It will surely find ways to deal with the internet. However, the age-old reliance on the omnipotence and wisdom of the trial judge’s instructions has already become as much of a relic as the pyramids. And, just as the pyramids still inspire us, our historically provident legal system probably will too.
However, we in the legal profession must face the reality that Facebook and its ilk have to be dealt with because the populace will not stand for them to be destroyed. Surely, if I were back in that first law school class today, the professor would evince a different perspective on 2025’s legal system.