"I'm on jury duty LOL #blessed"

"#juryduty #yawn #whyme?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOyrMXWQMw0

The story of New Jersey teen Sarah Stern’s murder, for most people, is horrifying. However, for one juror witnessing the trial of Stern’s alleged killer Liam McAtasney, it was hilarious. 

She posted “Sitting on the jury LMAO” to Facebook in response to a news article about the horrific crime. The post was made February 7 at 3:34 p.m. Court that day was dismissed at 4:30 p.m., which suggests she made the post while on jury duty. The juror (reported to be 21 years old) was dismissed and may be charged with contempt of court. Another juror was then dismissed for telephoning the ex-juror. The juror was relieved to be kicked off the case, saying, “A lot of people kept telling me I looked like (Stern) and everyone involved was my age and so it was a lot to handle […] I started having really vivid nightmares about it and I couldn’t take it anymore. It was too much.”

Not only did this case result in the dismissal of two jurors, but it also led McAtasney’s defense attorney to file a motion for a mistrial, a request which was granted by Judge Richard English.  

What does misconduct such as this bode for the jury system? It is already well-established that jurors use the internet to obtain information on the law or facts of the trial despite specific instructions to not obtain external evidence. However, what is it to be done about jurors compromising the fairness of a trial by posting about it on social media? 

• The ABA has suggested that judges should be more specific in instructing jurors about their use of social media before, during, and after trial. Considering that not all social media comments by jurors are misconduct per se, this may be helpful. For example, the ABA points out that in US v. Fumo, a juror post of “Today was much better than expected and tomorrow looks promising too!” was too “vague” and “meaningless” to be considered misconduct. In my opinion, all social media commentary should be banned during and after trial. Social media posts, including the vague and meaningless, undermine the integrity of the sacredness of the jury system. Any social media post from a juror would cast the jury system in a bad light, even if it does nothing to materially prejudice the journey. Thus, I think there should be a moratorium on social media posts of any kind.
• Another method proposed by Judge Nygaard to curb misconduct includes adding a social media screening process to voir dire. Attorneys could monitor jurors’ social media accounts or analyze their social media posts before trial to determine if they would be inclined to post inappropriate information. I believe that would be helpful in sorting out jurors who appear to post sensitive information, or perhaps post too frequently, or post during hours that indicate they are at work, or any other factor that suggests that they may violate instructions to not post about the trial online.

• Perhaps the most effective method, also suggested by Nygaard, would be to fine jurors who violate specific jury instructions to not post online. I think if there were an automatic fine of $1,000 dollars for instances of flagrant juror misconduct, then inappropriate Facebook comments would dwindle into extinction.