Jurors on "The Twitter"

The ABA Journal reports on a Reuters Legal finding that mistrials due to internet research and modern forms of communications by jurors is on the rise.

social-networking

The article states:

 Reuters Legal checked Westlaw for challenges related to jurors’ Internet conduct and found 90 verdicts called into question since 1999. More than half the cases are from the last two years. In 28 of the cases, 21 of them since January 2009, judges granted new trials or overturned verdicts.

The wire service also checked tweets with the words “jury duty” in a three-week period ending in December. “Tweets from people describing themselves as prospective or sitting jurors popped up at the astounding rate of one nearly every three minutes,” the story says.

Many of the tweets simply expressed boredom. But many included snap decisions on guilt or innocence. "Jury duty is a blow. I've already made up my mind. He's guilty. LOL,” one tweet read.

That last quote looks like a case of a juror thinking out loud. It's common knowledge that jurors begin to form opinions as early as opening statements. I don't profess to be able to read juries as far as what the verdict will be. But there have been many trials that the jury appeared to have its mind made up—one way or the other—before the trial was over.

I doubt that the internet is greatly increasing the number of jurors who communicate about the trial while it is going on. What is changing is the medium of the communication. Instead of telling a family member or friend about the trial in person, jurors are texting, posting on Facebook and using twitter. This is a reflection of the growth of these forms of communication—not juror conduct as a whole. Now there is a way for jurors to get caught. There didn't use to be.

I believe that the vast majority of jurors take their oath seriously and do not violate the Court's instructions about communications concerning the case. But this shows that courts need form jury instructions that specifically address texting, Facebook, twitter and other electronic communications.

I'm not sure how I feel about internet research by jurors. I've done enough focus groups to know that jurors have questions that don't get answered in trial—often about subjects that the lawyers are prohibited from addressing like liability insurance. In focus groups a know-it-all juror often answers the question—incorrectly. I might would rather have the jurors researching on the internet where they are more likely to get a correct answer.  

Social Networking Becoming the 800 Pound Gorilla for Litigators

Are you a litigation attorney? Are you on Facebook and/or Myspace? Do you even know what they are? You better. Use of social networking web sites such as Facebook and MySpace is now so common that issues related to these sites must be considered throughout the litigation process.

Wikipedia describes Facebook as:

Facebook is a social networking web site that is operated and privately owned by Facebook, Inc. Users can add friends and send them messages, and update their personal profiles to notify friends about themselves. Additionally, users can join networks organized by city, workplace, school, and region.

Myspace is another social networking site that is less popular than Facebook, but still a major player in social networking.

It is now common for lawyers to perform Facebook and Myspace research on the opposing party and witnesses in a case to look for evidence that can be used against the person. It is so pervasive, that lawyers should be looking at the social networking pages of their own clients in order to see what is there and to be prepared to deal with it.

There are other potential social networking issues that can arise in connection with trial. In Florida, judges and lawyers cannot be Facebook friends because “online ‘friendships’ could create the impression that lawyers are in a special position to influence their judge friends.”

I have talked with lawyers who are worried about a juror going home and researching parties on social network sites. What if a juror does that and discovers that the juror has a mutual friend with the party or belongs to the same club or religious group? Could that impact the juror’s decision in the case?

The same goes for lawyers researching potential jurors before a jury is put in the box. Social network sites can provide a wealth of information on how a person views life.

Within a couple of years I expect these issues to be so prevalent that social network sites are addressed by the Court and parties in voir dire. It would not surprise me if Courts instructed jurors to restrict their use of these sites during trial to make sure that the juror did not discover a personal connection to a party not known during voir dire.

How would you like to spend a week trying a complicated expert-intensive case, only to have a mistrial declared because a juror discovers a connection with a party on Facebook? Or the lawyers for a party discover the connection and ask for a mistrial deep into the trial? That would suck.

I am not aware of a mistrial due to social networking issues that arose during a trial. But I will be shocked if it has not happened or does not happen soon.

Litigators must be savvy of these issues, regardless of their personal feelings about social networking sites. Old timers  who pride themselves on being Internet ignorant better educate themselves on these issues, or they risk making a client unhappy when they do not spot a problem on the horizon.

Litigation departments in big firms would be smart to have mandatory in-house CLE’s to educate the firm’s lawyers on these issues. You can ignore the 800 pound gorilla that is social media, but you do so at your own peril.