Jurors, Internet Research and Social Media

The federal courts and more than 30 states subsequently adopted model jury instructions warning jurors against improper Internet use, and some have implemented policies restricting jurors' access to electronic communications devices during trials. A handful of jurors have been sanctioned for Internet-related misconduct, and courts have begun to issue decisions reflecting the collision between young, tech-savvy “digital natives” summoned to jury duty and the traditional rules governing juror research and communications. See, e.g., United States v. Fumo, 655 F.3d 288 (3rd Cir. 2011) (affirming the denial of a mistrial in a high-profile public corruption case where a juror made a succession of trial-related posts on his Facebook wall and also tweeted as the verdict approached); United States v. Juror Number One, ___ F. Supp.2d ___, 2011 WL 6412039 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2011) (dismissed juror was fined $1,000 for communicating her views about the appropriate outcome of the case to a still-sitting juror, who indicated she would “share your message with the gang”); Dimas-Martinez v. State, 2011 WL 6091330 (Ark. Dec. 8, 2011) (reversing a trial judge's decision denying a mistrial in a capital case where a juror sent tweets while the jury was deliberating).

The evidence now emerging from court decisions, judicial surveys, and other studies suggests that while new communications technologies and the Internet's research capabilities will present an ongoing challenge for the jury trial system, the initial blare of publicity about Google, Facebook and Twitter mistrials may have been unduly alarmist. There will continue to be occasional proceedings that go off the rails because of Internet-related misconduct by jurors. But as long as both advocates and judges remain sensitive to the risks of such episodes and cooperate to address them, the jury trial system should be able to successfully manage the challenges spawned by the communications revolution of the past two decades.