Premature jury deliberations, outside influences on juries, unauthorized communications with jurors and the failure of jurors to follow judicial instructions are classic judicial headaches. But, with easy juror access to Facebook and Twitter, more headaches loom as these social networking sites1 challenge a sacred cornerstone of our jury system that “‘conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print.’”2
Juror misconduct is difficult to detect, seldom confessed and often escapes punishment.3 Nationwide, mistrials involving misuse of electronic communication were, until recently, rare. A 2010 study indicated 90 criminal verdicts were challenged on the premise of Internet-related juror misconduct between 1999 and 2010.4 Only 28 mistrials were granted.5 In 75 percent of the affirmed verdicts, the court acknowledged that jurors may have deliberated prematurely or considered inadmissible evidence from social media communications or Internet research in reaching their verdict, despite judicial instructions to the contrary.6
Types of Misconduct
This content has been archived.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]
