About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

24 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 589 (2011)
The Appearance of Impropriety and Jurors on Social Networking Sites: Rebooting the Way Courts Deal with Juror Misconduct

handle is hein.journals/geojlege24 and id is 597 raw text is: The Appearance of Impropriety and Jurors on Social Networking Sites: Rebooting the Way Courts Deal with Juror Misconduct DAVID P. GOLDSTEIN* INTRODUCTION In an Arkansas case that resulted in a $12.6 million judgment against Stoam Holdings, a wall panel supplier, the defendant sought to overturn the decision after a juror sent out Twitter messages during the trial, including oh and nobody buy Stoam. Its bad mojo and they'll probably cease to Exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter.' In another case, a British juror was dismissed from a trial after polling friends on Facebook as to the innocence or guilt of the defendant.2 Similar stories involving jurors discussing trials on social networking sites are popping up around the world, presenting a growing challenge for the judicial system. Jurors are explicitly barred from discussing the case they are deciding with anyone at any time, with the exception of communication between jurors during their deliberation on the case.3 This prohibition is a crucial aspect of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial because it prevents the introduction and discussion of prejudicial material not subject to the safeguards of the judicial process.4 Moreover, jurors are prevented from discussing the case outside of jury deliberations because only the jurors have been found to be fair and impartial through the voir dire process.5 Finally, the confidentiality of jury deliberations is intended to prevent undue influence from pressuring jurors into changing their opinions.6 In the past, the avenues for communication between jurors and outsiders have been fairly narrow, and their possible audiences have * J.D., Georgetown University Law Center (expected May 2012); B.A., George Washington University (2008). 1. John Schwartz, As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials are Popping Up, N.Y. TIMEs, Mar. 18, 2009, at Al. 2. Urmee Khan, Juror Dismissed from a Trial After Using Facebook to Help Make a Decision, THE TELEGRAPH (Nov. 24,2008, 10:01 AM), http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/3510926/Juror- dismissed-from-a-trial-after-using-Facebook-to-help-make-a-decision.html. 3. See, e.g., United States v. Siegelman, 561 F.3d 1215, 1237 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting that juror exposure to outside information violates defendant's Sixth Amendment to trial by an impartial jury). 4. See, e.g., United States v. Resko, 3 F.3d 684, 690 (3d Cir. 1993). 5. E.g., N.Y. ST. UNIFIED CT. SYS, Jury Separation During Deliberations, in CRIM. JURY INSTRUCTIONs 2D (2009), available at https://www.nycourts.gov/cji1-General/CJ2d.JurySeparationRev.pdf. 6. See Timothy J. Fallon, Mistrial in 140 Characters or Less? How the Internet and Social Networking are Undermining the American Jury System and What Can be Done to Fix It, 38 HOFSTRA L. REV. 935, 938 (2010). 589

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most