Social media adding new challenges to jury trials

The temptation is bound to exist for a juror to jump on Facebook or Twitter and tell friends they have a ringside seat to a murder trial or share details of the case, but those postings could seriously question the impartiality of the juror and could lead to a mistrial.

The use of social media has become a part of everyday life, and it's now creeping into the jury box, which has judges and other court officials around the country revising rules and admonitions to prevent jurors from conducting their own research of the crime or civil issue and defendants or plaintiffs outside the courtroom. The standard rule is that jurors are only to consider evidence presented in court.

Sixth Judicial District Chief Judge Patrick Grady said he didn't know if there was anything that could be done to prevent the problem.

“Bottom line is we have to trust jurors to follow the admonition,” Grady said. “I've already added those things (social media) to the admonition in the last five years.”

Grady said he has a standard admonition for jurors not to talk to anyone about the case or read any newspaper articles or listen to radio and television broadcasts, but he's included an admonition not to use any social media to research cases or defendants.

Judge Sean McPartland said it just comes down to the honor system. He nor any judge can “stop people from going home and saying whatever they want about a court trial.”

“My experience has been if you give them the reasons and importance for the admonition the jurors will adhere,” Guy Cook, a Des Moines attorney said. “Most of the jurors take their job seriously and want to do what is fair.”

Linn County Attorney Jerry Vander Sanden said he didn't see it as a real problem in Iowa.

“Jurors honor the oath they have taken,” Vander Sanden said. “I can't recall in the 28 years I've practiced that jurors disregard the admonitions. Now, social media makes it easier for them to disregard but jurors tend to report any minor or insignificant contact (reading an article, knowledge of case).”

Cook said in his experiences, potential jurors will look up someone's Facebook posting or website to learn more about the defendant or lawyer.

“Some jurors, without an admonition, might think such ‘research' is OK,” Cook said.

Most of the judges and attorneys interviewed said it's not a huge problem in this area, but it has created problems in other areas of the country. A Reuters Legal analysis conducted last year found jurors breaking these rules via social media resulted in dozens of mistrials, appeals and overturned verdicts over the last few years.

In September 2010, a Florida appellate court overturned a manslaughter conviction of a man who killed his neighbor because the jury foreman used his iPhone to look up the definition of “prudent” in an online dictionary, according to the analysis.

A West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals granted a new trial to a sheriff's deputy convicted of corruption after a juror contacted the defendant through MySpace, according to Reuters Legal.

The study found that since 1999, about 90 verdicts have been challenged because of alleged Internet-related juror misconduct. More than half of these cases occurred in the last few years.

The study also monitored Twitter over a three week period and found tweets from potential jurors or sitting jurors appeared at the rate of one nearly every three minutes. Some were complaints about being called for jury duty but others made statements about guilt or innocence.

Recently, in the Barry Bonds perjury case one of the lawyers asked the court to tell jurors not to use “communications technology” to mention the case to anyone.

Attorneys said social media can be a positive tool or resource for them because it can help weed out potential jurors who might be biased and prevent their clients from having a fair trial.

Matt Craft, a Waterloo attorney, said he had a recent experience while helping another attorney look over his list of potential jurors in a civil case. Craft recognized a name of a high school classmate, so he entered her name in Facebook and found she was using her phone from the courtroom during jury selection.

She first complained about jury duty and then later was critical of the plaintiff in the case.

“I didn't think she would make a good juror and let him (attorney) know,” Craft said.

Craft said it has become his normal practice to use Facebook and Google to check out jurors.

Social media did prove helpful in one Linn County case when it prevented a woman, convicted in the death of her 2-year-old daughter and released on bond, from possibly fleeing before her sentencing.

Brianna Volesky, 20, of Cedar Rapids, pleaded guilty last year to neglect of a child and involuntary manslaughter. A warrant was issued for her last August after Assistant Linn County Attorney Nick Maybanks discovered Volesky made comments on Facebook that she was planning to leave the area. She also made comments that she wasn't coming back for her sentencing in September.

Other attorneys said using social media cannot only taint a jury, but can also hurt the defendant or plaintiff.

“I don't think people realize how accessible their posts are,” Tim Semelroth, a Cedar Rapids attorney, said. “There have been those cases where insurance companies have gone to those sites to look for evidence to try to avoid paying or to limit a (accident) claim. Nothing is private.”

Jake Koller, a Cedar Rapids attorney, said he warns his clients at the beginning of cases to stop their social media activity because it can result in a negative outcome in court.

“One particular case comes to mind – Mom would post negative things on Facebook about Dad, her own questionable activities, and even questioned the credibility of the judge,” Koller said. “As you can imagine, these things were not helpful to her case.”