Jury Rules and Social Media

Under the Sixth Amendment, any individual facing a criminal charge has the right to a fair trial decided by an impartial jury. To meet these criteria, jurors must not enter into a case with a preformed opinion about the defendant, prosecutor, or crime. Instead, the juror must weigh the evidence presented in court and make an informed decision based on the facts.

While any American citizen can serve on a jury, lawyers on both sides question potential jurors to eliminate individuals who may hold biased viewpoints. Media exposure to the trial or case is a common basis for juror rejection. If a case attracts a high level of public attention, it can be difficult to identify jurors who have not viewed potentially influential media before or during the trial.

Social media has complicated jury bias and media exposure, as many platforms serve both personal and informational purposes. People routinely share news articles with their online connections. Since individuals have little control over what appears in their social media feed, completely avoiding media trial coverage can be impossible.

Legal experts have raised several concerns about the proliferation of juror social media use and impartiality. First, jurors may be exposed to information purposefully excluded from trial evidence. This issue was prominent in a recent high-profile defamation case between actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.

Prior to the US trial, Depp lost a libel case in the United Kingdom. While evidence from the UK trial was not permitted in the following trial, descriptions of the UK trial’s evidence were easily searchable online. Conversely, thousands of media posts dissected the evidence presented in the US trial for signs of fabrication.

Jurors were instructed to refrain from researching the case, but were not sequestered. After the verdict, Heard's lawyers filed an appeal based on prolific media coverage of the trial and the potential of juror exposure.

Social media also complicates the ability to assess the case for a mistrial. Jurors may post information about the trial or sentiments that suggest a lack of impartiality in the case. However, identifying misconduct on an online platform is time-consuming, and evidence of juror bias may slip through the cracks.

To avoid these issues, state and federal legal systems have implemented codes of conduct for Internet and social media use. Jurors receive clear instructions to decide the case based only on the evidence presented in the courtroom.

This means that jurors should exclude any information or opinions solicited from outside sources from the verdict deliberation. Potential and selected jurors are also barred from doing any Internet searches on the trial or involved individuals.

The rules regarding social media consider that many people rely on these platforms to communicate with their families or run their businesses. For this reason, jurors are still permitted to use their accounts. However, they must not engage in any behavior that would affect their impartiality.

This includes sharing information about the trial or connecting with other jurors or litigants. The consequences for violating these rules are severe. Jurors may face sequestration or contempt of court charges. In some cases, juror misconduct can also serve as the basis for a mistrial.