Tweeting in the Jury Box: A Danger to Fair Trials?

Tweeting in the Jury Box: A Danger to Fair Trials?

Jurors that want to do their own investigation is nothing new. After being involved in several hundred personal injury jury trials I have seen many jurors trying to do their own investigation. I have had jurors follow my client during recesses in the trial to see if they walk/limp in the same manner as they do in the courtroom. Jurors have gone to the scene of the accident to "check it out". I have even had jurors look up medical information in texts books. These were extraordinary acts and most jurors follow the judges instructions not to do their own investigation and decided the case based only on the admitted evidence.

The problem with controlling the jurors now is the ease of access to information and the expectation of immediate answers in the Internet age. During a brake or during deliberations a juror could "Google" a person or topic and have virtually unlimited information. Certainly much of the information obtained would not be legally admissible for a variety of reasons (hearsay, best evidence, improper opinion evidence, ect.).

So how should the Courts deal with these problems? I don't believe the usual admonitions are sufficient (just telling the jurors not to do it). At a minimum, once the court begins its jury charge all Cell phones, laptops and pdas should be held by the Court. Unfortunately, many deliberations take more than one day, so in an ideal world we could sequester deliberating juries, but in the financial times we live in this is not a realistic option.

Another more radical alternative (which I am not advocating) is making investigating an ongoing trial by jurors a crime, and to video the deliberations. Currently, deliberations are secret and the jury is free to do and say what they want only bound by the oath they have taken to decide the case based upon the evidence. If during deliberations a juror shared that they had done any independent investigation then they could be punished. This would open up its own set of problems in chilling open discourse during deliberations and inhibiting people from sitting on juries.

There is no easy answer to this question, which could change our 300 year old system of jurisprudence more than any other single factor.