Steve Martin the Juror - New Federal Jury Instructions on Social Media
By Hayes Hunt and Brian Kint
Actor Steve Martin, while on jury duty, tweeted the following to 380,000 fans: “REPORT FROM JURY DUTY: defendant looks like a murderer. GUILTY. Waiting for opening remarks.” A few hours later, Martin added, “REPORT FROM JURY DUTY: Other jurors are stupid. First, they don't believe in ‘hexes.’ Plus, they want me to put my magazines away.”
Despite Martin’s levity, the federal bench has decided that juror use of social media is not funny. The Federal Judicial Conference has issued new jury instructions that specifically address the issue. After warning that the jurors cannot consult any outside materials and must decide the case based solely on the evidence presented, the new instructions go on to read, in pertinent, part:
[Y]ou may not communicate with anyone about the case…on Twitter, through any blog or website, including Facebook, Google+, My Space, LinkedIn, or YouTube...I expect you will inform me as soon as you become aware of another juror’s violation of these instructions.
For many of us the daily use of social media has become blasé. But using it in the courtroom can have real consequences. For example, less than a year ago, the Arkansas Supreme Court overturned a capital murder conviction and death sentence, because the trial court judge had failed to declare a mistrial even though one of the jurors posted Twitter updates throughout the course of the trial.
It is no surprise that the courts would strongly resist the relentless push of social media into our daily lives. After all, the legitimacy of the judicial system depends in some measure on the secrecy of juror deliberations. The jury announces its verdict with no commentary or rationale.
Yet, for the most part, we accept the decision both institutionally and societally.
For such a system to maintain its legitimacy, the process by which the jury comes to its conclusions must be either (a) above reproach, or (b) secret. The former is too ideal, but the latter is much more practical. If social media were allowed to permeate the process of jury deliberations, the decision-making process itself would be open to scrutiny. (See FRE 606(b) exceptions). Finality would be rare and collateral attack would become the norm.
The updated jury instructions attempt to maintain legitimacy, especially if Steve Martin is a juror.
Comments (1)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endDavid Tunno - September 20, 2012 10:16 AM
The following is a sub-chapter from my new book, Fixing the Engine of Justice, which is on point with this discussion.
Online and Off the Reservation
The Internet and its progeny have created yet another means by which jurors inclined toward misconduct can exercise that propensity, and they are running with it. Internet-related violations of judge’s instructions not to communicate regarding a case outside the deliberation room and not to consult outside sources of information have led to numerous examples of juror misconduct, driving judges to distraction, wreaking havoc in courtrooms, and resulting in many mistrials.
A Reuters Legal study compiled in 2010 found that in at least ninety cases in the previous eleven years, the verdicts were subjected to challenges because of alleged Internet-related juror misconduct, and not surprisingly, more than half of those occurred in between 2008 and 2010 as Internet use has increased and services such as Twitter and Facebook have emerged. The article went on to cite several examples ranging from what might seem relatively minor, such as looking up the definition of “prudent,” which nevertheless resulted in an overturned verdict in a manslaughter case, to:
• A juror contacting a defendant via MySpace (new trial granted)
• Another juror using the Internet to enhance his knowledge of sexual assault injuries (new trial granted)
• Another juror blogging about the trial lawyers, one of whom she thought was cute (juror dismissed)
That Seattle juror apparently saw nothing wrong with her actions, inasmuch as the judge had instructed jurors not to tweet, but made no mention of blogging, leading a public defender to comment, “We believe, probably stupidly, that jurors follow judges’ instructions. They don’t.”
According to the Sacramento Bee, in 2009, a San Francisco judge, in an abundance of caution, dismissed six hundred jurors because some admitted conducting online research on the case at issue. Five jurors who friended one another on Facebook during the trial led to a challenge by Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon of her misdemeanor embezzlement conviction. Another case in Florida was declared a mistrial after eight jurors admitted surfing the Web about their case. In possibly the worst example, a judge in Fresno, California, ordered a new trial for a convicted killer after learning that the jury foreperson (the foreperson yet) brought legal documents he obtained online into the deliberation room.
All the above cases and many more are causing courts to scramble to find ways to prevent such activity, from additional jury instructions to threats of fines, but the insidious nature of the activity makes it difficult to curtail. You will note that all the aforementioned examples include the fact that the jurors were either caught or admitted to the activity, a point amplified on by Greg Hurley of the National Center for State Courts in Williamsburg, Virginia: “The thing that makes the electronic media issue a little different is that it is so accessible and anonymous,” he said. “Jurors face exposure if they go to the library or drive by a crime scene, but there’s little risk in going online.”
1. “As jurors go online, US trials go off track,” Reuters, December 8, 2010.
2. Paul Elias, “Jurors on Twitter giving judges the jitters,” Sacramento Bee, March 8, 2010, A3.
3. “Juror misconduct gets killer new trial,” The Record, April 22, 2012, A2
4. Paul Elias, “Jurors on Twitter giving judges the jitters,” Sacramento Bee, March 8, 2010, A3.