Social Networking in Court
As social networking on sites like Facebook and Twitter grow in prominence, courts across
America are confronting new challenges in dealing with the use of technology by jurors and
reporters, and judges must balance the openness of courtroom proceedings to ensure that the
defendant receives a fair trial.
Judges commonly instruct jurors to avoid media sources on the trial subject or case for which
they are seated. Before social media sites entered the mainstream, jurors found this instruction
relatively easy to follow. Now with growth of PDA’s, Blackberry’s, and iphones information on
any case is readily available and might even be automatically streamed via RSS feeds. Jurors
generally do not intentionally seek out the information on the trial, but instead may be checking
their Facebook pages and Twitter accounts and happen upon information about the case. If they
choose to access these sources, they run the risk of violating the terms of their jury duty.
This past June, the American Bar Association Journal reported that the Ohio State Bar
Association released a statement urging judges to instruct jury members that, in addition to
prohibiting their access to newspapers, radio, and television for the duration of the trial, jurors
are also prohibited from using Twitter, Facebook, or iPhones.1 Some judges already include
these specifics in the jury instructions, while others hesitate to eliminate these electronics and
question whether the instructions will be sufficient to keep jurors from learning about the case
from outside sources.
Judges are also facing the issue of reporters using Twitter to report on cases in “real time.” In
February 2010, during the Baltimore, MD case involving former mayor Sheila Dixon, reporters
and observers sitting inside the courtroom were reporting on every single twist and turn of the
trial as it was occurring. The Baltimore Sun reported that the judge in the case ordered all
1
Sarah Randag. “Bar Guidelines for Ohio Jurors: Forget What You Saw on ‘Judge Judy’ and ‘CSI’”, American Bar
Association Journal:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/bar_guidelines_for_ohio_jurors_forget_what_you_saw_on_judge_judy
_and_csi/
observers and reporters to cease the use of Twitter in the courtroom, reasoning that allowing that
kind of reporting would be tantamount to allowing television cameras into the courtroom.2
The public has long maintained the right to know about court cases as reflected in the publication
of courtroom proceedings. The system of jury trials, which allows a panel of peers to decide
cases, suggests that the criminal justice process is a community activity. While this is an
important issue in the judicial system, maintaining the fairness of the judicial process for the
defendant is equally as important. If jurors receive outside information about the trial from
Twitter and Facebook, their decision[s] may be tainted. Twitter often contains the reactions of
other people to posts, which can influence the opinion of jury members if they are able to access
these broadcasts. Furthermore, it is important to maintain some degree of security in the
courtroom where witnesses might require protection.
As technology continues to progress, judges have the burden of weighing competing interests in
the criminal justice system, especially the interest of maintaining the openness of courtroom
proceedings against the interest of assuring the defendant a fair trial - one in which the jury
makes its decision based only on the facts presented.
2
Andy Green. “Twitter Crackdown in Baltimore Circuit Court”, Baltimore Sun, February 9, 2010:
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/2010/02/twitter_crackdown_in_baltimore.html