Jurors heeding judges’ requests not to use social media

July 31, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Nearly 500 federal judges responded to a request by the Federal Judicial Center to report on how frequently jurors used social media to communicate during trials and deliberations over the past two years. The judges’ response: not that often.

 Of the 494 District Court judges who responded to the survey, only 33 reported instances of detected social media use by jurors during trial or deliberations. And of those who reported social media use, 97 percent said it was used by a juror in only one or two cases. Facebook topped the list cited by judges; one judge reported a juror attempted to “friend” a participant in the case.

And the survey also reveals that it’s usually not the judge who’s catching the social media violation; it’s another juror, an attorney or court staff typically reporting the use of social media.

The number of jurors who used social media recently isn’t that far off from the number reported in 2011. There were only 30 reported uses of social media that year, in which 508 judges responded to the survey.

The reason for the small number of occurrences could be attributed to the steps the judges have taken to explain to jurors why they are not to use social media in the courtroom. Nearly 75 percent have explained in plain language the reason behind the social media ban and nearly 70 percent instructed jurors at multiple points throughout the trial. Two percent of the judges said they required jurors to sign a statement of compliance or written pledge agreeing to refrain from using social media while serving on the jury.

A very small percentage – 4 percent – reported they have not specifically addressed jurors’ use of social media.

This year’s survey also asked about social media use by attorneys during voir dire. The majority responded they did not know the number of trials – if any – in which attorneys have used social media. Only 25 judges indicated they knew attorneys had used social media in at least one of their trials. Based on those judges’ responses, it appears attorneys are using Facebook, Google and LinkedIn profiles the most to check up on prospective jurors.

Another interesting find from the survey: 25 percent of the judges who responded to a question on allowing attorneys to use social media during voir dire said they forbid it. About five percent of judges specifically permit it, with the majority saying they don’t address the issue with attorneys before voir dire.

The American Bar Association issued a formal opinion in April recommending attorneys do not message a juror or try to gain access to a juror’s private account before or during a court proceeding.
The complete report is available on the Federal Judicial Center’s website.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT