Slashdot Mirror
Federal Judges Wary of Facebook, Twitter Impact On Juries
coondoggie writes "The impact of social media such as Twitter, Facebook and Google+ and others on federal juries is a concern that judges are frequently taking steps to curb. According to a study 94% of the 508 federal judges who responded said they have specifically barred jurors from any case-connected use of social media."
to start crowdsourcing juries, I mean why bother having 12 people show up ina room when you got half the country saying hes guilty before the trial starts on facebook!
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
IMO rules about this sort of thing fall into the category of "people really shouldn't need to be told".
When you participate on a jury, you are prohibited from communicating anything related to the case with anybody outside of the jury deliberation chambers. End of story. Whether you communicate the information face-to-face, via e-mail, or through Facebook or Twitter really shouldn't matter.
But of course there are idiots throughout society, so multiple, redundant rules need to be enacted to try and prevent problems.
Being a juror stinks - I think most everyone agrees on that. But the rationale behind restrictions like this makes sense: communication about the case outside the courtroom may result in a juror's opinion being changed by friends, family, Facebook contacts, etc.
It's hard for some people to slow down and refrain from tweeting of Facebook posting every last thing they do every day... but I'm sure we'd all appreciate a fair trial without undue influence from bystanders who don't know all of the facts if we ever find ourselves seated at the defendant's table one day...
This is one time when following the rules can have enormous consequences. Far too many people see jury duty as a joke, or otherwise don't follow the rules in other areas of their life (parking in handicapped spots to run into the store for "just a minute," taking things from work because "nobody will miss it") and this transfers to abiding by the rules set forth by the judge at trial. It's a joke for some people - and that's just disrespectful.
I don't see why social media should be treated differently than any other media with respect to jurors. It's simple: don't expose yourself to prejudicial opinions or information. Adding "social media" to the list of sources that can contaminate a jury just shows that judges know their business. Nothing to see here, move along.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
google+ has an impact on something? this is news!
In England, a juror was jailed last year for communicating with an acquitted defendant on Facebook: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/16/facebook-juror-jailed-for-eight-months
And another was jailed last week for researching the defendant on the internet generally: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/23/juror-contempt-court-online-research
I know, at times it borders on anti-social
While I understand your cynicism, I believe it to be a bit misplaced in this instance. These rules are to protect the rights of the people. Specifically, the defendant.
Also, I don't believe the situation to be quite so hopeless as you put forth. When I last served on a jury, I was picked to be the "extra guy" (unsure of the proper term), so I didn't get to join in deliberations. Instead, the judge called me into his chambers. I felt this was a bit odd, but he just wanted to talk about my jury duty experience, and any way they could try and make it better for the jurors. He (and I suspect most other court staff) was well aware of the generally negative perception of Jury duty, and wanted to try and help fix that. That concern was genuine, and not required of him in any capacity.
I have never spoken to another judge in the same manner, so I have but one data point to give, but its a very promising and hopeful data point. I think it has a little smiley face on it, actually.