Twitter is all the rage on the social media front these days for its ability to enable instantaneous, up-to-date communications and search on various topics in an easy, bite-sized manner.  Twitter has been recognized for breaking news on a number of important events, with a user posting the one of the first photos of the US Airways Flight 1549 plane crash in the Hudson River, and users providing real-time coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks, the wildfires in San Diego, and other events.  Twitter is even being used by a reporter covering trials to send live updates from the coutroom.

For all of the benefits enabled by instantaneous and up-to-date information sharing and research enabled by Twitter, blogs, and Internet search engines like Google, there are some endeavors for which such benefits run counter to policy--sitting as a juror in jury trials for instance.  Jurors are instructed not to discuss cases they are sitting on during trials and not to perform any independent research.  An online handbook for Illinois jurors provided by the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, for example, states that "Jurors are not to discuss the case among themselves until they have heard all of the evidence, the arguments of the attorneys, and the Court's instructions...During the trial you must not discuss the case with your family, friends or others," and (emphasis original), "YOU SHOULD AVOID NEWSPAPERS OR RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCASTS which may feature accounts of the trial or information about someone participating in it."

Accustomed to microblogging minute details of their lives and searching the Internet from anywhere on mobile devices like iPhones, some jurors apparently can't bring themselves to follow the restrictions on information sharing and research during jury trials.

In May of 2008, a jury foreman in a criminal case in West Palm Beach, Florida, used his iPhone during a recess in deliberations to look up the definition of the word "prudent," which he then relayed to other jurors.  The defense attorneys requested a new trial due to juror misconduct.  The judge in the case denied  the request, concluding that any juror misconduct did not affect the verdict.

In March of 2009, the defense team for a building materials company requested a new trial after discovering that a juror had sent out posts on Twitter about the case in February, including one post that stated, "I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else's money."  It is unclear from news reports whether the posts  were made before or after the verdict was handed down.  Regardless of timing, the defense team is claiming that the Twitter posts display that the juror was "was predisposed toward giving a verdict that would impress his audience."

In another case in March of 2009, a juror in a federal drug trial admitted to performing research on details of the case on the Internet.  The judge asked the other jurors if they had done the same, and eight others replied affirmatively, prompting the judge to declare a mistrial.  According to defense lawyer Peter Raben, who had been told by the jury that he had been close to winning the case for his client, “It’s the first time modern technology struck us in that fashion, and it hit us right over the head.”

In a third case in March of 2009, defense lawyers in a federal corruption trial requested the declaration of a mistrial after discovering that a juror had posted updates on the trial to Twitter and Facebook.  The judge denied the request.

Additionally, since at least 2005, controversies have been caused by jurors posting about trials on blogs.  In once case a juror wrote blog posts before and after jury selection which the defense claimed demonstrated the juror's bias against criminal defendants.  In another case, a juror used a laptop and the WiFi connection in a jury waiting room to live-blog about being on jury duty.

With all of this potential for mistrials and other trial interference, it may be increasingly important for lawyers to ask jurors about their use of social media and online research--whether they have a habit of posting to Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc--and for judges to repeatedly remind jurors of the restrictions on discussing and researching trial details during jury trials.

Other resources:

New York Times:

As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials Are Popping Up

 

ABA Journal

A Shock for Judge Zloch: 9 Jurors in 1 Trial Doing Web Research

 

Capital Murder Trial Chronicled Via Twitter

 

Law.com

Appeal Claims Juror Bias in 'Tweets' Sent During $12 Million Case

 

A New Headache for Courts: Blogging Jurors