By now most are familiar with or have heard of attorneys using the internet to research or investigate jurors. Prior to the Digital Age, attorneys used more traditional methods to investigate jurors. At times, these methods could be quite intrusive e.g., some attorneys drove by the homes of jurors or interviewed the friends and neighbors of jurors. There is even a 1920s U.S. Supreme Court case (Sinclair v. United States) which discusses the practice.
Apparently, not all attorneys have forsaken these traditional methods. Recently, in Bohn v. Forba Holdings, a New York trial judge overturned a jury verdict because an attorney for the defense allegedly "stalked" the jurors. The actual attorney misconduct was not done by the attorneys litigating the case but by another attorney retained by the defendant to monitor the case.
After the jurors returned a verdict in favor of the defense in a dental malpractice case, the judge handling the case spoke with the jurors about their experience. During this time the judge learned that the attorney in question made the jurors feel extremely uncomfortable by his actions which included: following the jurors around; showing up at the same restaurants where they had lunch; and routinely joining them on the elevator. A few jurors even thought that the attorney actually videotaped them.
After learning this information, the judge held a hearing to question this specific attorney. As a result of this hearing and the information the judge learned from the jurors, she ordered a new trial for the plaintiffs. In ordering a new trial the judge determined that the attorney's actions violated the sanctity of the jury. Specifically, the trial judge found that
This is a case where jurors over a I5-day period believed that they were stalked, videotaped and closely monitored by a person they believed worked for defendants. This is a case where jurors performing their civic duty were made to feel bothered and scared. This is a case where the administration of the law was imperiled.