Well I certainly understand your point. I'm not sure if I managed to communicate mine thoroughly or clearly. I'm not really talking about jurors collecting their own EVIDENCE - which only a party can submit - the article frames it in a fact checking manner by referencing Google Maps, for instance. The "relevance" of facts is for the jury to decide, and for the parties to debate. People are going to have opinions no matter what, even if they can't fact check them on the Internet when they make their decision. Having an opinion based on your own knowledge is not against any law or a basis to strike you during voire dire. In Virginia, for example, lawyers must perform jury duty. Contemplate that for a moment . . . then maybe it's not really an issue of "stupid jurors" thinking they might know better than the parties or the judges. If judges were never wrong their wouldn't be an appeal process. I don't think kicking off involved jurors who do their "own investigating at home" is really in the spirit of the law, making a decision is part of the desired process - this of course does not include disregarding jury instructions on how the law is to be interpreted - but the fact of the matter is the jury is the finder of fact. If you don't believe something, or think one party or other has grossly mischaracterized an underlying premise to present something as "fact" (Al Gore invented the Internet, defendant hates Al Gore, thus defendant attacked the Internet) you're allowed to deliberate your opinion. As a devil's advocate to my own assertions, the Internet is not a source of authority, but it can provide information which does lead to a source of authority (maybe a seminal medical study that the prosecution has twisted, or a case citation that is being misused by the prosecution - who more often than they should actually write the jury instructions). Clearly this will become a deeper issue as time passes. Much like many people forego the sensationalistic sound byte media coverage for the more analytical coverage provided online, defense lawyers, prosecutors and judges may find themselves less knowledgeable than the jurors they are trying to persuade which equals NOT GOOD.

Seperating the issue of blowing off your civict duty from fact checking, I remain curious about fact checking. I am not a trial lawyer, but I read enough transcripts to know that prosecutors (and of course, defense lawyers) often misunderstand or mischaracterize information, or just plain lie. Either party can raise an objection based on any incorporated presumptions in a statement or question that has not been qualified by the other party, but if it slips past and a juror is disturbed by the misinformation, they cannot simply fact check for themselves, right? Many jurors are more sophisticated than the judge or attorneys in the case on at least one subject matter area. One thing the Intertubes has done is allow people to fact check for themselves and ferret out myths and hoaxes, I would think it would be a tendency of involved jurors to do the same for information presented to them at trial. How many bad decisions could have been averted if jurors had done some fact checking and then presented findings to judge during deliberations? Further disclaimer: big differences in civil and criminal trials, but basic notion of fact checking remains the same.