Just this month it was reported that Internet addiction exists. Indeed, the affliction, formally identified as Internet Use Disorder (IUD), is being considered for inclusion into the revised Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders (DSM-V) published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) as an actual mental health disorder. A person with IUD will experience “preoccupation” with the Internet, withdrawal symptoms when the internet is no longer available, an increasing tolerance and therefore a need to spend greater time on it to achieve the same “high,” as well as loss of other interests, unsuccessful attempts to quit, and “use of the internet to improve or escape dysphoric mood.”1
Perhaps this may account for the increase in reported cases of juror misconduct involving use of social media networks? Any criminal law practitioner knows the right to a fair and impartial jury in a criminal case is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and §1 of article I of the New York Constitution,2 but this basic tenet has been challenged by the use of today’s popular social media networks by jurors, and will be addressed in this article.
Disturbing Trend
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
