Google search in court

In the story below, I am troubled by two things:

- the assumption that a diversity of items being available proves that each of them are rarer to come by (here a yellow hat). How a Google search can help assessing this baffles me. Statistics of sale would be more relevant. Education of judges in how to use Google and how Google gathers its information?

- why indeed a judge can 'google' but not juries?

Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases (TechDirt, 23 March 2010)

Use of Twitter in courts

Again, the issue about adapting or not juries to the 21st century, i.e. in a world where writing is predominant and oral transmission of information does not represent anymore 95% of the transmission of information
Michigan Supreme Court Issues New Stop Twittering Rule For Juries (TechDirt, 17 July 2009)

Jurors and the availability of technology

For a civil law suit I think, but issue applicable to cybercrime/criminal law in general

"Lawyers Use Juror's Twitter Messages As Basis For Appeal" (TechDirt, 18 March 2009)

I can't help thinking about the question of whether President Obama should access his Blackberry (distraction or no distraction?...)

Jury duties and new technologies

The way jurors perform their function have not changed for centuries. They sit down, listen, no notes can be taken most of the time, and after a few days or a few months of trial, decide on the case. In a world where writing is now key, where aural transmission of culture and knowledge is inexistent (without images/video, I mean), Lord Judge of Draycote's comments is certainly a viable and valuable one. Yes, childrend and young adults cannot sit anymore to just listen and do nothing else. I would certainly not dismissed its comments on how this inability to listen can affect criminal trials. Now should we change the way a jury trial is conducted?
The fact of listening with no writing is an intrinsic part of an adversarial trial; it is viewed as being the only way to arrive to a fair decision. Introducing writing would certainly modify the process of reaching a decision. But that does not mean the adversarial trial would sell its soul to the devil. Financial trials (complex frauds) are actually hindered by this traditional process and a fair decision cannot be reached. So time for a change? Work from criminologists and linguistics could help understand the impact writing could have.
"Web-savvy young make bad jurors because they cannot listen, says Lord Chief Justice" (7 November 2008) and TechDirt on the same day