ILNews

ABA warns against 'liking' potential jurors

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Allen County courts have been instructing juries for the past two or three years to stay away from social media during a trial. Jurors are told not to log on to their accounts to research the case or survey Google maps to look at the crime scene or post anything about the trial on the Internet.

At the end of one court hearing, Allen Superior Judge Frances Gull was told by a juror that she did not touch a computer at all during the trial because she was so scared of violating the instructions.

Gull was pleased. Jurors, she said, should not be messing around with computers during trials.

Recently, the American Bar Association issued similar instructions to lawyers, advising litigators to avoid messing around with social media during trials.

The ABA’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 466 in April which says that attorneys should not message a juror or try to gain access to a juror’s private account before or during a court proceeding.

Lawyers applaud the statement from the ABA, saying abuses can easily happen given the extreme popularity of social media like Facebook and Twitter.

“This is an issue that is pertinent to today’s society because so many people participate in social media,” said Indiana Trial Lawyers Association president Mark Ladendorf. “As a result, I think it is something we can’t ignore.”

Ladendorf said the ABA opinion is a good start. He especially likes the document’s language detailing what attorneys should and should not do.

People chronicling their daily lives on social media has become so common place, Evansville attorney Joe Langerak agreed, that lawyers, like anyone else, may post information without thinking about the impact it could have.

Langerak, partner at Rudolph Fine Porter & Johnson LLP, has changed the way he conducts a hearing because of an encounter with a social media misstep.

The incident happened a few years ago during an out-of-town trial. At the start of the final day, the judge called all the attorneys into his chambers and passed around a copy of a Facebook post made by one of the opposing counsel. In the entry, the attorney boasted about his trial work and made comments about some witnesses.

The attorney was very apologetic, but Langerak was so taken aback that he had to walk the halls of the courthouse and think through the situation before deciding what to do.

He does not think the opposing attorney was purposefully trying to influence the jury, but now he takes preventive measures. Whenever he has a case that goes to trial, Langerak has a paralegal monitor social media and asks the court to issue an order regarding the use of social media.

The ABA opinion allows a lawyer to review a juror’s Internet pages and postings that are available in the public domain but it bars the lawyer from trying to communicate with that juror through social media.

Using the analogy of an attorney just driving by a juror’s house, the ABA held an attorney would not be engaging in ex parte contact by searching the Internet to find information about the juror. However, if the attorney contacts the juror online and asks for information that is not public, that is akin to stopping the car and asking to see inside the juror’s house.

Ladendorf’s firm always asks new clients for permission to access their complete social media pages. The attorneys do not want clients posting comments or photos that opposing counsel could use to undermine the plaintiff’s case.

As an example, the personal injury attorney said a client who claims a bad injury should not upload photos of himself or herself doing cartwheels.

Just like juries, Langerak wondered if judges could also be tainted by social media. Social media posts and comments about an expert or a witness could influence a judge to rethink his or her assessment of the testimony.

“It just doesn’t impact juries,” Langerak said of social media. “It has the potential to impact the judicial arm of the court.”

While jurors are being instructed, Gull said she has never had to instruct the attorneys on use of social media. However, she conceded maybe things are happening of which the court was not aware.

Gull, noting how much her children in their 20s engage on social media, believes judges will have to become more proactive as younger attorneys, clients and jurors appear before the courts. The judges will have to get more specific, she said, and explain what is put on the Internet cannot be erased.

Likewise, judges should be very careful about their own use of social media, she said. The bench has to avoid the appearance of impropriety.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT