Juries

Why Courts Worry About Jurors Using Social Media

The latest article on jurors and social media is listed below. Among
other things, the article lists four reasons why courts are so concerned
about jurors using social media.

(1) Potential for direct communication with members of the court

(2) Release of confidential information about the trial or the deliberation process

(3) Disclosing of personal information about a fellow juror

(4) Revealing an unacceptable bias for or against one party

I would add one more reason to this list or maybe expand  #1. 

Potential for communication with outside parties unaffiliated with the court. 

When jurors use social media they are likely to post or write about the  case.  This increases the likelihood that they will get into a  discussion or communication with an outside party about the case.  This in turn may lead to the outside party improperly influencing the juror. 

Social Media Use as Evidence of Juror Misconduct: Richard Raysman and Peter Brown

 

I have written two law review articles on this topic. 

Google, Gadgets, and Guilt: The Digital Age's Effect on Juries

Investigating Jurors in the Digital Age: One Click at a Time

Court Holds Jurors' Use of Toy Cars to Reenact Collision Was not an Investigation (People v. Cook)

In People v. Cook, the CA appellate court both affirmed and reversed portions of the defendant's criminal conviction for vehicular manslaughter.

What I found interesting about this case is the trial court's discussion of juror experiments.  In Cook, one of the jurors went out at lunchtime and bought toy cars. During deliberations, he used the cars to reenact the accident which was the central issue in the case. Defense counsel argued that the reenactment was sufficient grounds for the trial court to release the personal information of the jurors so that they could be contacted by defense counsel. In CA, juror personal information is sealed upon the issuing of the verdict and can only be unsealed by showing sufficient grounds of juror misconduct.

In this case, the trial judge, in denying the motion to unseal the jurors' personal information, found that "using plastic cars is not an experiment.  That [it] is no different than drawing little pictures or using the yellow Post-It that says this car's here, that car's there." After making this determination, the trial court went on to say that "not every jury experiment constitutes misconduct.  Improper experiments are those that allow the jury to discover new evidence by delving into areas not examined during trial." Upon review, the appellate court agreed with the trial court's reasoning on this issue. 

Although juror experiments may seem at first glance rather clear-cut, it is not always easy to distinguish between conducting improper experiments and merely reexamining or testing the evidence presented at trial.  The line is usually crossed when new evidence is introduced into the jury room. 

One of the more memorable examples of improper juror experiments is Ohio v. Ryan Widmer.  In that case several jurors took showers at home and then timed themselves as they air dried.  Determining how long it took a human body to dry was a critical issue in the case, however, neither party presented definitive evidence on the issue. Once defense counsel learned about these experiments he requested and was a granted a new trial. 

Other posts related to juror experiments can be found here.

Shrinking CA Juries

The California Judges Association is proposing a state constitutional amendment that would significantly change jury service in CA for misdemeanor cases.  These proposals include:

(1) reducing juries from 12 to 8 for misdemeanor cases punishable by up to one year in jail

(2) reducing the total number of peremptory challenges in these cases

The primary reasons for these changes is to cut costs in the judiciary.  However, I think they have other benefits to include expediting misdemeanor cases.  I also believe that with smaller juries attorneys may be more inclined to request jury trials. 

A critique of the proposals can be found here.

Support for the proposals can be found here.

Court to Search Juror's Computer

This is one way to cut down on jurors conducting internet research.  I am sure that as more jurors learn that the court can order an inspection of their computer they will be more inclined to follow the court's rules on obtaining outside information about the case.

Tambabay.com: Judge orders search of juror's computer drive in Buju Banton case

You +1'd this publicly. Undo

 

Jurors on Facebook

This article, like so many others, highlights the problems that can arise when jurors turn to Facebook.  In this case, the juror used social media to both brag about the speedy deliberations and complain about the lack of an open bar.  The exchange between the juror and his Facebook friends is as follows:

Oct. 1: “Got picked
for jury duty.”

Oct. 2: “Sworn to
secrecy as to details of this case. Most importantly there is no beverage
service and the 3:00 p.m. Cocktail hour is not observed!”

Oct. 5: “Drunk and
having a great food at our fav neighborhood hangout.”

Oct. 10: “Back in the
box for day 7.”

Oct. 11: “Starting day
8 of jury duty.”

Oct. 11: “Civic duty
fulfilled and justice served. Now, where’s my cocktail????”

Oct. 11: Civil case…
Verdict for the defendants… Yes, I was the jury forearm … Complete
deliberations and verdict delivered in under one hour.”

His friends posted
responses like:

Oct. 2: “If he’s cute
and has a nice butt, he’s innocent!”

Oct. 9: “I’m still
amazed they allow jurors to nip from a flask all day,”

Oct. 9: “Remember nice
ass = innocent!”

Oct. 11: “Was it Miss
Peacock in the library with the lead pipe?”

I don't think there is enough here to overturn the verdict.  However, I am hoping that more stories like this will get the judiciary to implement some real reforms.

 

Jurors and Social Media in Ireland

As this article indicates, improper use of social media by jurors is not limited to the United States.  The problem can arise in any country that relies on the the jury system. 

Irish Examiner: Juror faces contempt after seeing details on Facebook

Jurors who Google

The article below discusses a prospective juror in Florida who conducted internet research during jury selection.  When asked by the judge why he researched the case the juror explained, "curiosity got the better of me."

Fortunately for this juror he was neither fined nor incarcerated.  Instead the judge decided to sentence him to additional service as a juror--one week a month for the next three months.  What I find interesting about this growing problem is that few ever look at the system itself.  It seems most folks want to place all the blame on the juror rather than examine the legal system as a whole. 

Jurors like everyone else in society are curious.  In the Digital Age, they now have the tools to satisfy this curiosity.  Society should consider offering jurors other ways in which to fulfill this curiosity e.g., courts should allow and encourage questions by jurors.

St. Petersburg Times: Judge sentences misbehaving juror to more
jury service

 

Apple v. Samsung: Juror Misconduct Motions

In an effort to overturn a billion dollar jury verdict arising from a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Apple, Samsung has filed a motion for new trial alleging among other things juror misconduct. The motion for new trial available here alleges that the jury foreman (Hogan) "failed to answer truthfully during voir dire." The motion also alleges that Hogan introduced "incorrect and extraneous legal standards" during deliberations. With respect to juror misconduct, Samsung has not presented a particularly strong case for overturning the jury's verdict. 

Here is the response by Apple which was filed yesterday. As an initial matter, Apple argues that Samsung waived its right to raise claims of juror dishonesty because Samsung could have discovered the alleged "lies" by Hogan before the verdict. Apple also claims that Hogan was not dishonest. Instead, Apple asserts that the questions posed to Hogan were not specific enough. Here is the language from Apple's brief: 

When asked, “[h]ave you . . . ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness,” Mr. Hogan described a 2008 technology ownership lawsuit.  He was never asked if there were other lawsuits or a bankruptcy,and hence never failed to answer a question truthfully.

With respect to the issue of Hogan introducing extraneous information during deliberations, Apple's motion states that such claims cannot be considered by the court subject to Rule 606(b). As some are aware, Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) greatly limits the court's ability to review juror deliberations. In examining both motions, it appears that Apple has the better argument. Judges generally are hesitant to overturn jury decisions absent very compelling circumstances which do not appear to be present here.

For more background on the Apple v. Samsung patent infringement case go here.

Cracking Down on Jurors who Google

It appears that some American judges (at least in Florida) are cracking down on jurors who violate the court's rules on using the Internet to research a case.  The media is reporting on a story in Florida where the judge is planning to incarcerate a juror for using Google to research the defendant. 

This is the second time this year in which a Florida juror faces incarceration for flaunting the rules of the court.  Most jurisdictions limit their punishment of jurors to a public reprimand or some type of fine.  However, it looks like Florida judges are starting to emulate the English and take a tougher stance on those who ignore the court's instructions about conducting outside research on a case.

As discussed here, improper research and communications by jurors is a growing problem in the Digital Age.  I have written more extensively on this topic here.

 

Motion for New Trial (Juror Misconduct)

Here is Samsung's motion for new trial which is partially based on allegations of misconduct by the jury foreman.  The motion alleges that the foreman "failed to answer truthfully during voir dire." The primary focus here is on the juror's prior litigation history.  The motion also alleges that the foreman  introduced "incorrect and extraneous legal standards" during deliberations.  With respect to juror misconduct, Samsung has not presented a strong case for overturning the jury's verdict. 

For background on the Apple v. Samsung patent infringement case go here.