You’ve been called for jury duty. This time, you’re going to meet your civic responsibilities (i.e. not try to weasel out of it). You’ll take your smartphone and your Kindle and hang out for seven hours or so with the rest of your fellow citizens in the jury pool. Who knows — maybe you’ll find an intriguing brunette to chat up as you commiserate over the quality of the vending machine coffee. (Hey, it happened in a Saul Bellow novel, didn’t it?) Then, with any luck, at the end of the day you’ll collect your check for $17.20 and go home with that self-satisfied feeling of having done your civic duty.
Just be careful what you use that smartphone for while you’re sitting in that courthouse.
A number of State Supreme Courts have woken up to the potential dangers of jurors who Tweet or blog while impaneled on a case before the courts. They’re now proposing amendments to their respective Rules of Civil Procedure, in the form of changes to the mandatory instructions that trial judges are required to give to potential jurors and to the actual members of a jury once it has been selected and impaneled. The idea is that by doing a little web research or sounding out their FaceBook friends or Twitter followers, jurors could be opening themselves to influences from sources other than the evidence admitted in court.
Where before jurors were simply told not to discuss the case with anyone, even their spouses or friends, the instructions proposed by some states now specify that this includes discussions via phone, email, text message, chat room, blog, or social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, or MySpace. In fact, persons called for jury duty might do well to keep mention of the fact off their social networks altogether. In other words, socializing at the vending machine – yes; Tweeting to your social network about your jury duty — better not.
Consider, for instance, the Qualifications Instructions developed by the Supreme Court of Florida – a particularly good example, written as they are in plain language (as opposed to “legalese”):
Many of you have cell phones, computers, and other electronic devices. Even though you have not yet been selected as a juror, there are some strict rules that you must follow about using your cell phones, electronic devices and computers. You must not use any device to search the Internet or to find out anything related to any cases in the courthouse.
Between now and when you have been discharged from jury duty by the judge, you must not provide or receive any information about your jury service to anyone, including friends, co-workers, and family members. You may tell those who need to know where you are that you have been called for jury duty. If you are picked for a jury, you may tell people that you have been picked for a jury and how long the case may take. However, you must not give anyone any information about the case itself or the people involved in the case. You must also warn people not to try to say anything to you or write to you about your jury service or the case. This includes face-to-face, phone or computer communications.
In this age of electronic communication, I want to stress that you must not use electronic devices or computers to talk about this case, including tweeting, texting, blogging, e-mailing, posting information on a website or chat room, or any other means at all. Do not send or accept any messages, including e-mail and text messages, about your jury service. You must not disclose your thoughts about your jury service or ask for advice on how to decide any case.
After you are called to the courtroom, the judge will give you specific instructions about these matters. A judge will tell you when you are released from this instruction. All of us are depending on you to follow these rules, so that there will be a fair and lawful resolution of every case.
Prudently, the instructions also anticipate the need for future amendments. In a Note on Use, the Court acknowledges that the instructions “may need to be modified to include other specified means of communication or research as technology develops.”
What about enforcement? At least for now, the courts appear to be taking the traditional approach: relying on the circumspection of the citizenry. If, however, a juror were to blog or Tweet about the case he’s serving on, it’s increasingly likely that, somewhere among his readers or followers, he will reach somebody who’s looking out for Truth, Justice, and the American Way – who will then be inclined to notify the Court.
Mistrial, anyone?