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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT