Down in the DM - Social Media’s Threat to the Impartial Jury

“Don’t friend the defendant on Facebook, and please do not slide into their DMs.”

This phrase has more or less made its way into model jury instructions across the country. The issue of jurors looking up parties in a case on social media—and in some cases, contacting them—has resulted in mistrials and hefty consequences for jurors. As social media has become a prominent part of everyday life, courts are taking extensive measures to mitigate its impact on trials.

For example, a juror in the UK was sentenced to eight months in jail after friending and Facebook messaging a defendant in the trial to which she was a juror in. The juror messaged the defendant while jury deliberations were ongoing, revealing “highly sensitive” details about the deliberations for the other co-defendants. Consequently, the case collapsed, and the juror was held responsible. 

Here in the US, a similar incident occurred with a Texas juror. The juror, who felt a great deal of sympathy for the defendant in an auto wreck case, attempted to friend the defendant on Facebook after trial recessed for the day. The juror was dismissed from the case, pleaded guilty to four counts of contempt of court, and received a sentence of two days of community service.

In a more indirect form of contact, a juror’s decision to look up a defendant on LinkedIn during trial raised concern of potential juror misconduct. Despite the juror only looking at the profile, LinkedIn sends automated notifications to its users disclosing who has viewed their profile and when. While the judge in this case ultimately found that no misconduct had occurred, these incidents raise awareness to a larger issue jury service faces in the day and age of social media. 

While jurors may be less likely to make blatant contact with parties in the trial to which they are serving, they may still feel inclined to do their own form of “social media stalking” outside of the courtroom. Attorneys work incredibly hard to paint a favorable picture of their case and client within the four walls of the courtroom. Outside research by juries has the potential to hinder these efforts.

While it is nearly impossible to limit juror use of the internet or social media during trial, courts continue to take steps to mitigate its impact. For example, a federal judiciary committee issued model jury instructions that heavily warn against the use of social media during trial. The instructions warn against using social media to communicate with other jurors and parties, conduct outside research, post about the case, and even warn against using fake social media accounts. Other courts in states like California and New York have also implemented fines for jurors caught using social media improperly during trial.

Social media is not going away, and if anything, will continue to present more complex issues for courts. While unavoidable, courts and parties can continue to take steps to mitigate its effect.