Social Networking and Trial Juries
image courtesy of jasonunbound
I have a BA in Criminal Justice. My interest in the justice system started in high school, when I took the Government class required by the state of Ohio in order to graduate. The class was taken by seniors, and it had a reputation for being incredibly hard. I went into it without a lot of knowledge or interest in the subject, but I left the class wanting to be a Government teacher. I found the subject matter engaging and interesting, and I often got As on my work. I did the extra credit assignments that the teacher regularly gave because they sounded interesting, not because I needed the credit. When I got to college, I quickly changed my major to Criminal Justice. My aim was to become a lawyer, and I went as far as to take the LSAT and apply to several law schools. Ultimately, I decided to “take a year off” (famous last words), and never went back. But I’ve never lost my interest in government and specifically in the court system.
My work is now in social media and online communities, and some would say there’s some overlap there. 
So it is with interest that I read this article by Kathy Ossian about the use of social media by jury members, and how that can and cannot affect the impartiality of the jury and ultimately, trial outcomes.
Juries are typically instructed not to access, discuss, or read any information about the case or the subject matter of the case while they are assigned to the jury. Where this would be difficult-to-impossible, juries are sequestered. That’s pretty rare though — most jury members serve during the day and go home at night. But access to social networking, and even the web at large, is starting to play a role in motions for mistrial.
While two of the three cases that Kathy Ossian cited are in regards to jury members accessing informational websites (United States vs. Hernandez, and United States vs. Siegelman), but she also cites a civil case in Arkansas where a court determined that a party was deprived of the right to a fair trial when it was found that a jury member sent messages via Twitter indicating that he was biased against one of the parties.
As services like Twitter grow in popularity, courts will have to face this more and more. Mistrials are expensive and time consuming. As jury members, it’s important that we abide by the directions given to us by the judge, and refrain from seeking information about the case or discussing the case with anyone — including Facebook friends and Twitter followers.
I really do believe that social networking and online community can open up lots of avenues of communication, but there are some avenues that need to remain closed for the sake of fairness and justice.