May 24, 2012

The Risks of Social Media: Unfair Trials by Jury

 

Being fresh off an 8-day stint as a juror in a civil case, I found the article released today on Law.com very interesting. It focuses on the the right to a fair trial in the age of Facebook, Twitter and the internet in general. As we see in the instances below, in the age of instant information sharing, cases large and small are being disrupted and the somewhat-antiquated court system is trying to figure out how to address the problem of socially networked jurors.

  • Last month, one Michigan juror was disciplined for posting a comment about the case. Before the case was over, this juror posted on Facebook how it was “gonna be fun to tell the defendant they’re GUILTY.” Alert defense counsel saw the posting, and the trial judge dismissed the juror, fined her $250 and ordered her to write a five-page essay about the constitutional right to a fair trial.
  • During a February 2010 criminal trial, a New York juror sent a key witness a Facebook friend request. The judge found that the juror’s communication was “unquestionably a serious breach of her obligations as a juror and a clear violation of the court’s instructions.”
  • In March 2009, after eight weeks of trial in a drug case, a Florida juror admitted to the judge that he had conducted Internet research. When the judge questioned other jurors, he found that eight others had been doing the same thing. The judge declared a mistrial.
  • In February 2009, an Arkansas juror used his mobile device to post eight messages on Twitter during court proceedings. Among the messages: “I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else’s money.” The judge denied defense counsel’s motion for a new trial.
  • In 2008, a juror posted online a photograph he took of the murder weapon, a 15-inch, double-edged, saw-tooth knife. The judge held the juror in contempt of court, but denied motion for mistrial.
  • In 2006, the New Hampshire Supreme Court rejected a motion to overturn a murder conviction based on pre-trial comments a juror made on his blog. The juror’s posts included: “now I get to listen to the local riff-raff try and convince me of their innocence.”

If your company ever finds itself involved in a trial by jury, it may not be a completely fair one. Law.com suggests that lawyers should ask jurors during jury selection about the frequency of their Facebook and Twitter use, ask the judge to remind the jurors that they may come forward to report a fellow juror’s misconduct, monitor juror social media activity during trial and remind jurors before and after every jury break about the court’s ban on communicating with others about the case during trial.

gavel

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2012 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Editor

Emily Holbrook is the editor of Risk Management magazine and the Risk Management Monitor blog.

212-655-5915

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.