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. I just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT