New Jersey is the latest state to sanction online juror research by attorneys. In Carino v. Muenzen, A-5491-08, the NJ Appeals Court reversed a trial judge who refused to allow a plaintiff's attorney to research jurors in the courtroom during voir dire. In Muenzen, the trial judge disallowed the practice because defense counsel who did not have a laptop was unable to conduct similar research. According to the Appellate Court "that [plaintiff's counsel] had the foresight to bring his laptop computer to court, and defense counsel did not, simply cannot serve as a basis for judicial intervention in the name of 'fairness' or maintaining 'a level playing field." The Appellate Court went on to say that "the playing field was, in fact, already 'level' because Internet access was open to both counsel, even if only one of them chose to utilize it."
This past summer the Missouri Supreme Court in Johnson v. McCullough also addressed the issue of attorneys researching jurors. In McCullough, the Missouri Supreme Court basically encouraged attorneys to research jurors stating a "party must use reasonable efforts to examine the litigation history on Case.net of those jurors selected but not empanelled and present to the trial court any relevant information prior to trial." For further discussion of the McCullough case go here.
Comments