A newsrack, a judge, and the First Amendment

Last week, during jury selection for trial of Timothy Jones, who is accused of killing his five children in Lexington County and dumping their bodies in Alabama in 2014, presiding judge Eugene Griffith Jr. ordered the removal of a Lexington County Chronicle dispensing machine in front of the courthouse. The judge’s order raises the question of how far courts may go to ensure that a criminal defendant gets a fair trial.

Juror Gets 30 Days, Fine for Online Research

A juror in a high-profile criminal trial of five members of a church for beating a gay congregant has been held in contempt and sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $500 for doing independent research online about (archaic, it turns out) North Carolina law and distributing it to fellow jurors. Besides punishing the juror, the judge also declared a mistrial in the case.

Quoted by the AP. And Herman Cain.

I've been quoted by the Associated Press in a story about a bill pending in California that would allows judges to fine jurors who use social media or the internet improperly during trials. And 2012 presidential candidate Herman Cain pulled my quote from the AP for his daily news update (halfway down the page).

New York Bar Association Committee Calls for Jury Instruction Improvements for Digital Age

In my 2011 study of state and federal courts' jury instructions regarding the internet and social media, I observed that New York State's civil and criminal pattern jury instructions were among the most advanced in how they dealt with the issue. Not only do New York's instructions admonish jurors not to use these resources to research or communicate about the cases they are hearing, but the instructions also mention specific sites and warn of the possible consequences if the instruction is disobeyed.

Now the New York State Bar Association's Commercial and Federal Litigation section is calling for updating and strengthening the instructions.

Small Survey Shows Juror Misconduct Online May Be a Big Problem

In previous posts, I have been skeptical of surveys of judges that have revealed low levels of internet and social media use by jurors. Now a small survey of New Hampshire state judges indicates that it such juror misconduct may be more common.

New Poster Gets Specific On Juror Research, Social Media Use

The National Center for State Courts has released a new poster, "Juror Responsibilities Regarding the Internet and Social Media," that is intended for jury rooms to remind jurors that they should not from research or use social media to discuss cases. But the poster's limited explanation of the reasons behind the restrictions is problematic.

Juror's Online Research Leads to Murder Reversal

Research by a juror in a Pennsylvania trial which uncovered the defendant's prior involvement with the law has led a judge to order a new trial in a murder case in which the defendant has been on death row since 2007.

This marks the second known time that a murder conviction has been overturned because of a juror's online research, although in that case the reversal was also based on a juror who fell asleep during the trial. See Erickson Dimas-Martinez v. State, 2011 Ark. 515, 385 S.W.3d 238 (2011).

Jury's Still Out on Juror Internet Use

A recently-released report from the Federal Judicial Center says that in a survey of 494 federal trial judges (48 percent of all 1,021 sitting federal trial judges), only 33 of the judge (seven percent of respondents) reported that they were aware of instances of juror use of social media to communicate during trials or deliberations in their courts

California Judicial Council Recommends Repeal of Law Criminalizing Juror Internet Use

cross posted at the Digital Media Law Project)
In August 2011, California adopted a statute making it a crime for jurors to use social media and the Internet to do research or disseminate information about cases. Now, two years after the law went into effect, the state's Judicial Council has recommended that the statute be repealed.

Web Restrictions Not The Answer to Juror Online Research

(cross posted at the Digital Media Law Project)
Juror use of the Internet to do research or communicate about trials is a growing and persistent problem. So, what can a judge do? For several years now courts have been giving jurors more detailed admonitions and jury instructions against educating themselves about cases online, to little effect.

A few judges have taken a different approach, ordering web sites with information on specific cases to remove the information from the Internet. But in a pair of recent decisions, appeals courts have said this method of limiting juror online research is an unconstitutional prior restraint.

Article Analyzes Online Research About Jurors

My latest article, "Virtual Voir Dire: The Law and Ethics of Investigating Jurors Online," has been published in the Spring 2013 issue of the American Journal of Trial Advocacy.

My Journal Article is Published

My journal article, "The Wired Jury: An Early Examination of Courts' Reactions to Jurors' Use of Electronic Extrinisic Evidence" has been published in the Florida Coastal Law Review. (The article is available here.)

Social Media in Court Down Under

A panel of academics (including my friend Mark Pearson of Griffith University) has issued a report commissioned by the Attorney General of the Australian state of Victoria on the issues involving jurors' use of social media, including recommendations for dealing with the issue.

Judge Threatens Jail for Juror's Online Research, Discussions

The Tampa Bay Times and Lawyers.com both report that a Florida judge who declared a mistrial in a capital murder case because of a juror's Internet research into a murder case and online discussions of a case led to a mistrial has been threatened the juror with jail time.

Study Finds Significant Juror Interest In Internet, But No Use -- Yet

(cross posted at the Citizen Media Law Project)
A survey of jurors from 15 trials has found that jurors generally understand instructions not to use the Internet or social media to research or communicate about trials, but that many jurors wish they could use technology to do some sort of research about the cases they sat on. Very few, however, reported that they had violated admonishments not to research or discuss the case with others prior to deliberations, and all of these involved pre-deliberation discussions with either fellow jurors or family members. None involved the internet or social media.

The Feds Try Again, But Just Won't Say Why

(cross posted at the Citizen Media Law Project)
The federal courts have revised the jury instructions released in 2010 to address jurors' use of the internet and social media. But while the revised version is more specific about what activities jurors should avoid, they are still inadequate. This is because they are still in the form of a command -- "thou shalt not" -- but do not explain to jurors why they should not discuss the case or do research online.

Extrinsic Research: Yes, Judges Do It Too

(cross posted at the Citizen Media Law Project)
Several posts on this blog have discussed the issue of jurors conducting "extrinstic" research by looking up facts online to supplement the evidence that is presented them in court. Courts nationwide are struggling to figure out how to deal with this, from posters in jury rooms to penalizing jurors for conducting such research.

Washington Courts Confront Twitter Appeal

A man convicted in 2010 of murdering Mark Stover, a “dog whisperer” with celebrity clients including Starbucks founder Howard Schultz, ballplayer Ichiro Suzuki and musician Eddie Vedder, has filed a motion for a new trial, citing the 20 tweets that one juror posted during the trial.

A Double Dose in Boston

A Massachusetts Court of Appeals decision regarding juror use of social media during trial led me to be interviewed by the Boston Globe for a story that was published yesterday (May 14) and by WGBH on today's Emily Rooney show.

Court Disconnect: Judge Urges Jurors to Keep Off MySpace

One of the major problems with juror use of the Internet and social media -- and courts' attempts to stop it -- is the disconnect between judges and other court officials, who are generally older and less familiar with modern media tools and services, and jurors who are tech-savvy.