Washington Courts Displaying "Focus on the Courtroom" Poster in Deliberation Rooms

At the upper right margin you will find a poster being displayed by Washington Courts to focus jurors on their duties. Link:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/juryRoomPoster.jpg

Judges Need to Explain Why Social Media Rules Are Necessary for Fairness

Earlier this week I interviewed Minnesota litigation consultant Susan Macpherson for the District Court Show (see link at right).  She confirmed my conclusion that judges should not simply pass rules prohibiting jurors' use of social media and the Internet for research, but that the need for fairness to the parties must be explained in detail by the judge.

 I found preliminary jury instructions adopted by the Ohio Bar Association which is a good start to address these issues.  I would add even more explaining about fairness.
Just "google" this phrase: Ohio Bar Association Social Media Jury Instructions

I  will add a post when the District Court Show episode with Ms. Macpherson is available for viewing on the QCTV website.

Juror Number 8 in "12 Angry Men" Guilty of Misconduct

Probably the most famous movie about juror behavior and deliberations is 12 Angry Men (United Artists 1967).  Henry Fonda plays juror number 8, the lone holdout, who conducts his own research when deliberations focus on a unique knife allegedly used by the defendant.  Fonda goes to the neighborhood of the crime and buys an identical knife which he shows his fellow jurors.  What is this?  Misconduct of a juror by bringing extrinisic evidence not admitted at trial into the jury's deliberations.  Makes for good drama, but violates his oath and is unfair to the prosecution.  Had this drama been set in 2011 he could have simply looked for similar knives on the Internet via Ebay, knife collector websites, or Amazon.  The desire of juror's to conduct their own research is not a new product of the Age of Social Media.

Defense Seeks to Have Conviction From Bench Trial Overturned: Alleges Judge's Adult Children Were Facebook Friends With Victim's Family

An Illinois woman convicted of child battering is seeking to have her conviction following a bench trial overturned, alleging the judge should have recused himself because the judge's adult children are Facebook "friends" with members of the victim's family.  The prosecution has argued that being Facebook "friends" is meaningless and that there is no evidence the judge knew who his adult child's Facebook friends were or would care.
Link:   http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/9426713-417/judges-kids-facebook-friends-at-issue-in-bid-for-a-new-trial.html

Arkansas Death Row Inmate Granted New Trial Due to Tweeting and Sleeping Jurors

See post below dated 11-21-11.  The conviction has been overturned and a new trial ordered.  This was just announced by Arkansas Supreme Court, so just "Google":

Arkansas Death Row New Trial

There are several stories.

Disconnecting the Wired or Wifi'ed Juror

I participated in a panel discussion at a Minnesota Judicial Conference and gave this Power Point presentation.  Click the second line below:

<div style="width:425px" id="__ss_10520836"> <strong style="display:block;margin:12px 0 4px"><a href="http://www.slideshare.net/stevejudge123/disconnecting-the-wiredwifidjuror-2-10520836" title="Disconnecting the wiredwifidjuror (2)" target="_blank">Disconnecting the wiredwifidjuror (2)</a></strong> <iframe src="http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/10520836" width="425" height="355" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <div style="padding:5px 0 12px"> View more <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/" target="_blank">presentations</a> from <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/stevejudge123" target="_blank">stevejudge123</a> </div> </div>

MA Court Allows Blogs and Tweeting by New Media During "Open Court"

Recently Quincy (MA) District Court allowed live tweeting, blogging and video-streaming from the courtroom.  Link to article:  www.patriotledger.com/news
Link to article on "Open Court" dated Dec. 6, 2011 is in middle under the heading "Cops and Courts.".

Would Granting Reasonable Accommodations to Jurors Include Use of Computer?

Rules governing jury service include that the court must provide reasonable accommodations to jurors, including providing sign language interpreters for deaf jurors, large seats for jurors of large stature, and facilities for breast-feeding mothers or persons requiring frequent medication.  In discussing juror misconduct with other judges, one raised a good point.  What if a juror says they would prefer to take notes on a laptop or tablet computer (such as an Ipad) or smartphone  instead of handwriting on a paper tablet?  What would be the court's response and on what basis?  I doubt a juror would find it acceptable for the judge to simply say "No, and because I said "no."  If judges simply start to adopt rules to prohibit such use of technology, how can we allow attorneys, clerks, jury consultants, and others in the courtroom to use computers but not the jurors?  Certainly issues arise such as how do we make certain the juror is not making an audio recording of the proceedings or doing Internet research or "tweeting" while on a break or lunch.  Also, judges probably haven't even thought of what types of technology will be available in 6 months or a year.  The smartphone could be the size of a wrist watch or roll up like a piece of paper ( seen in futuristic movies).  The bottom line is that the courts need to evaluate these issues far beyond just setting more rules against use of technology by jurors.