Publications

Use of Social Media by Jurors — Death Knell or Paper Cut to Jury Trial Integrity?

State Bar of Texas Litigation Section Report, The Advocate
09.01.12

USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER INTERNET SERVICES by jurors has caused a minor earthquake for trial lawyers and judges. The past few years have seen an increasing incidence of juror misconduct using social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and LinkedIn.1 Social networking sites provide jurors with not only another means for independent research but also a new venue for unauthorized communication. Improper use of social media can expose jurors to extraneous prejudicial information from their Facebook friends or Twitter followers, constitute prohibited ex parte communication, and, in some cases, subjects jurors (rightfully) to judicial inquiry.

Sensationalistic stories of jurors misusing social media appear regularly.And the rate at which verdicts are challenged on the basis of juror misuse of the internet has increased.3 With every trial that takes place, more judges and trial attorneys experience firsthand how internet use affects jury trials. As my one “war-story” for this article, a jury panel member in a recent trial commented during voir dire and in the presence of other members of the jury panel that he questioned why the case was being tried in an American court rather than in a Mexican court. The tone of this comment seemed more like that of an informed opinion than an innocent query. And it was. Counsel and the judge later questioned the gentleman separately and learned that he had researched pleadings on the court’s website during the weekend after receiving the jury panel questionnaire. The panel member had read pretrial briefing and disagreed strongly with the court’s rulings on earlier-filed motions to dismiss: an easy strike for cause. 

Use of social media by jurors during trial has prompted initial, but not comprehensive, study among professional and academic communities on how to best address juror Internet use. Solutions commonly suggested in the literature include restricting access to the Internet (whether by sequestration or prohibition of electronic device use in the courthouse), penalizing jurors who improperly use the Internet, investigating juror Internet use, modifying jury instructions, and most controversially, implementing a variety of “active jury” reforms such as permitting jurors to ask questions of witnesses. Before attorneys, judges, and policy makers decide on how to best approach this issue, however, they should consider first how much we actually know about jurors’ online behavior. The data is less than complete.

Read More.

The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.

Search Tips:

You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander.  A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.

Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used.  For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.

Operators

AND and OR may be used in a search.  Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance." 

The + and - sign operators may be used.  The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".

To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks.  For example, "Project Finance".

Searches are not case sensitive.

back to top