Retweet This: Juries Using Social Media Harms the Trial Process

     The problem that has developed with jurors using social media and the internet during the trial process is not new. The digital footprint is continuously growing within modern society. Everyone has access to social media and the internet at the touch of their fingertips. However, jurors are supposed to be focused on the information presented and should not be using additional sources to formulate their opinions. 

    Because of the digital world we live in, research has shown a correlation between social media and internet use by jurors, and mistrials. One notable example is a death row case from the Arkansas Supreme Court in 2011. The Arkansas Supreme Court ordered that the inmate deserved a new trial because a juror tweeted during trial proceedings. The jurors were specifically told not to use social media during the trial, but one juror chose to ignore the instructions. As Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote, the risk of prejudice is “simply too high’ to allow jurors to post any information or “musings” online. 

Will new model jury instructions help?

    The Judiciary is aware of this problem and efforts have been made over the last few years to limit social media usage by jurors. In September 2020, a federal Judiciary committee issued a new set of model jury instructions that federal judges may use to deter jurors from using social media to research or communicate about cases. The new instructions specifically eliminate communication with anyone about the case in any way through all social media sources. Likewise, the instructions prevent jurors from doing their own internet research on case issues. 

    What is clear about the new model jury instructions is that the Judiciary recognizes the importance of upholding the integrity of a fair trial, but by making the instructions optional, the effects of these proposed words falls short. If Judges do not utilize these model jury instructions, then this could be seen as a wasted effort.

Does money talk when it comes to social media usage?

    In comparison, California has attempted to enhance the risk attached to using social media or surfing the web. California legislators enacted a law in 2016 allowing judges to issue a $1,500 fine to jurors caught using social media. Given that most citizens are reluctant to serve as a juror because of the little or non-existent compensation that they receive, I would have to imagine that the risk of being fined $1,500 for being caught using social media during trial would serve as a hefty deterrent. By implementing the new model jury instructions along with enacting a similar law to California, that could be a recipe more inclined to discourage jurors from posting and tweeting with no remorse. However, monitoring social media usage sounds like a full time position that the Judiciary is probably not going to want to finance. 

  How do we stop the impact of bias on social media that the jurors read about before they come to the courthouse? 

    In the age of social media, it is almost impossible to find jurors that have not been exposed to various accounts of the facts before voir dire. To combat the effects of these biases, attorneys are asking jurors about what they have seen on social media as part of the voir dire process. Even if the instructions are followed and the attorneys seek to determine what biases jurors bring into the court room, does a juror ever really unplug? The answer is, they need to.