Can Lawyers Look up Jurors on Social Media

Is it permissible for a lawyer to look for information about jurors on social media? A new ABA ethics opinion (Formal Opinion 466) says yes (subject to local rules and court orders)—but lawyers shouldn't ask to connect with the jurors. See this article from ABA Journal online (April 24, 2014).

Graphic: Drawing of jury by Charles Edmund Brock taken from: Thomas Hood, Humorous Poems ... With a preface by A. Ainger, and ... illustrations by C. E. Brock. L.P (1893); available in the British Library's Photostream here. Blogger, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Twitter logos added by Mary Whisner.

How Damaging Is a Prior Conviction as Impeachment in a Civil Trial?

Kathryn Stanchi & Deirdre M. Bowen, This is Your Sword: How Damaging are Prior Convictions to Plaintiffs in Civil Trials?, 89 Wash. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2014), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2412110:

The conventional wisdom in law is that a prior conviction is one of the most powerful and damaging pieces of evidence that can be offered against a witness or party. In the legal lore, prior convictions seriously undercut the credibility of the witness and can derail the outcome of a trial. This paper suggests that may not always be true.

This paper details the results of an empirical study of juror decision-making that challenges the conventional wisdom about prior convictions. In our study, the prior conviction evidence did not have a direct impact on the outcome of the civil trial or the credibility of the witness with the conviction. Moreover, we tested prior conviction evidence with a white witness and an African-American witness and saw no difference in results.

The prior conviction evidence did, however, change the trial in a substantial, but indirect, way. Rather than the direct effect on outcome that we might have expected, the introduction of the prior conviction evidence changed the mental decision-making process of the jurors. Specifically, the evidence seemed to subconsciously lead the jurors to conclude that to decide liability, they had to believe one party over the other. The prior conviction evidence thus turned the trial into a zero sum credibility contest in which believing the plaintiff’s story meant disbelieving the defendant’s (and vice versa). This “zero sum” effect did not appear in the control version of the trial.

In sum, the results of our experiment suggest that while prior convictions are highly noticeable and powerful pieces of evidence, they may not always be the bane that lawyers think they are. Nevertheless, the introduction of this evidence has the potential to change a civil trial by changing the juror decision-making process.

Alaska Bill Would Allow Jury Nullification

A House bill promoting the notion that jurors can ignore Alaska's criminal code and let a lawbreaking defendant off the hook had a brief hearing Wednesday in the House Judiciary Committee, then was held for later. The bill, fostering "jury nullification," has been a bipartisan favorite of some Fairbanks-area House members, with identical versions introduced in 2002 and 2009.

Richard Mauer, House bill pushed by Fairbanks lawmakers promotes ‘jury nullification', Anchorage Daily News, March 26, 2014.




H.B. 315 is here. The bill information page has more links. The sponsor, Rep. Tammie Wilson, states:

Before one is able to understand why jury nullification is a good idea, one must understand the importance of a trial by jury. Our Founding Fathers considered them to be a powerful weapon in the war against tyranny. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution”. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote that trial by jury was the “very palladium of free government” and a “valuable check upon corruption”.  

Given the strength of these opinions, then, it is no surprise that the denial of trials by jury was one of the foremost acts of despotism listed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.  

As for the concept that juries have not only the power but the obligation to nullify unjust rulings of a judge, John Adams wrote, “It is not only (the juror’s) right, but his duty … to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court”.  

Our Founding Fathers zealously defended this right and recognized that only an informed and empowered jury could effectively protect a defendant from the potentially harmful effects of autocratic judges. Jury nullification allows citizens to have the final say on what is fair in a court of law.  

Therefore, I ask for your support of HB 315. Jury nullification is a good idea and one supported by Constitutional principles of freedom.

Jur-E Bulletin from the National Center for State Courts reports:

The state attorney general's office opposes the bill, indicating it would lead to “unfair and disorderly trials.”  Additionally, Doug Gardner, director of the Legislature's legal services division wrote a memo which expressed concern that the bill may not comply with U.S. Supreme Court precedent that "it is the duty of juries in criminal cases to take the law from the court, and apply that law to the facts as they find them to be from the evidence."  Additionally, he wrote another memo comparing the provisions in House Bill 315 to New Hampshire Revised Statute 519:23-b, which is New Hampshire’s statutory authority for jury nullification.  

The Fiscal Note Analysis prepared by the Department of Law includes some interesting commentary.  It states:

Passage of this bill would result in more cases brought to trial by jury because even though the offender does not dispute that he or she broke the law, the offender could argue for the jury not to follow the law.

Jurors Have a Hard Time Resisting Call of the Web

After a five-week trial, Judge Mary E. Roberts

Judge Mary E. Roberts (UW Law '84)
Photo from King County Superior Court

faced a tough decision: after learning that the jury foreman defied her instructions not to research legal issues on the Web, should she let the verdict stand or declare a mistrial?

The juror had looked up the penalty for first-degree rape—but in criminal trials, the juror is supposed to focus on the definition of the crime, not the penalty. The judge decided that the jury had been sufficiently tainted by the juror's action that a new trial was warranted.

The Seattle Times has a long story about this case and the nationwide issue of jurors leaving the jury room via wireless technology. Ken Armstrong, Case of the Curious Juror: When the Web Invades the Courtroom, Seattle Times, Jan. 18, 2014.

As people increasingly carry around Internet access in their pockets and reflexively look up actors on IMDb, rate restaurants on Yelp, and settle trivia disputes with a quick look at Wikipedia, the use of the web by jurors has challenged judges, advocates, and parties nationwide.

The Washington Courts created (with private funds) a poster for jury rooms reminding jurors to "FOCUS ON THE COURTROOM." (Here's the press release about it.)

Washington Courts poster

Jury instructions include cautions about outside research. See WPI 1.01 (civil trials) and WPIC 1.01 (criminal trials):

It is essential to a fair trial that everything you learn about this case comes to you in this courtroom, and only in this courtroom. You must not allow yourself to be exposed to any outside information about this case. Do not permit anyone to discuss or comment about it in your presence, and do not remain within hearing of such conversations. You must keep your mind free of outside influences so that your decision will be based entirely on the evidence presented during the trial and on my instructions to you about the law.

Until you are dismissed at the end of this trial, you must avoid outside sources such as newspapers, magazines, blogs, the internet, or radio or television broadcasts which may discuss this case or issues involved in this trial. If you start to hear or read information about anything related to the case, you must act immediately so that you no longer hear or see it. By giving this instruction I do not mean to suggest that this particular case is newsworthy; I give this instruction in every case.

During the trial, do not try to determine on your own what the law is. Do not seek out any evidence on your own. Do not consult dictionaries or other reference materials. Do not conduct any research into the facts, the issues, or the people involved in this case. This means you may not use [Google or other internet search engines] [internet resources] to look into anything at all related to this case. Do not inspect the scene of any event involved in this case. If your ordinary travel will result in passing or seeing the location of any event involved in this case, do not stop or try to investigate. You must keep your mind clear of anything that is not presented to you in this courtroom.

For more on the impact of the web on litigation, see these articles by UW Law students from the last few years:

• Matthew Frederickson,  Conformity in Confusion: Applying a Common Analysis to Wikipedia-Based Jury Misconduct, 9 Wash. J.L. Tech. & Arts 19 (2013)
• Mallory Allen & Aaron Orheim, Get Outta My Face[book]: The Discoverability of Social Networking Data and the Passwords Needed to Access Them, 8 Wash. J.L. Tech. & Arts 137 (2012)
•  J.C. Lundberg, Googling Jurors to Conduct Voir Dire, 8 Wash. J.L. Tech. & Arts 123 (2012)
• Heather L. Griffith, Understanding and Authenticating Evidence from Social Networking Sites, 7 Wash. J.L. Tech. & Arts 209 (2012)
• Aurora J. Wilson, Let's Be Cautious Friends: The Ethical Implications of Social Networking for Members of the Judiciary, 7 Wash. J.L. Tech. & Arts 225 (2012)
• Duncan Stark, Juror Investigation: Is In-Courtroom Internet Research Going to Far?, 7 Wash. J.L. Tech. & Arts 93 (2011)
• Jason Boulette and Tanya DeMent, Ethical Considerations for Blog-Related Discovery, 5 Shidler J.L. Com. & Tech. 1 (Sep. 23, 2008)
• Gareth S. Lacy, Should Jurors Use the Internet? (2010)
• Gareth S. Lacy, Untangling the Web: How Courts Should Respond to Juries Using the Internet for Research, 1 Reynolds Cts. & Media L.J. 169 (2011)

See also the Jurors & Courtrooms page in the Social Media & the Courts section of National Center for State Court.

Want more? Just take out your smartphone and run a search. (But not while you're on a jury.)

Mistrial After Everett Juror Does Online Research

A child sexual abuse case resulted in a mistrial after a juror went online to research the  concept of witness coaching and told his fellow jurors. The  prosecutor didn't want to put  the six-year-old victim through a second trial, so reduced the charges to resolve the case. Juror’s ‘research’ forced mistrial in child rape case, Herald.net (Everett), Dec. 12, 2012

The end of  the  article briefly discusses a mistrial that resulted from a juror refusing to return to court after a break in deliberations.

Defendant Has Right to Be Present During All Jury Selection

A defendant is headed for a second trial for first-degree murder after his first conviction was reversed because he had not been present for all aspects of jury selection. Biker convicted in ‘no-body’ Ravensdale killing headed for new trial, SeattlePI.com, Feb. 26, 2012.

The Court of Appeals case is State v. Price, No. 63056-3-I, Justia link, Findlaw link (July 25, 2011). (The court also addresses a Rule 404(b) issue, saying that the trial judge was within her discretion to admit evidence of the defendant's membership in a biker gang.) The Court of Appeals applies a recent Washington Supreme Court case that examines the right to be present for jury selection under both the federal and the state constitutions. State v. Irby, 170 Wn. 2d 874, Google Scholar link (2011).

Juries for South Korea

UW grad Steven Kim ('00) has the combination of trial experience and fluency in Korean needed to train Korean officials in the how the U.S. jury system works. King County prosecutor to help South Korea establish jury system, Seattle Times, Jan. 30, 2012. (This article is a few weeks old, but I missed it until Seattle U's law library blogged about it. Nobody can keep up with everything!)

Jurors Excused Because of Views Toward Immigrants

In the Franklin County trial of a Mexican for allegedly killing his girlfriend, Judge excuses some jurors because of opinion about immigrants, Tri-City Herald, Feb. 14, 2012.

Pro Se Defendants Questioning Victims

One day in 2010, a woman who was to be questioned by the man who had abused her through her childhood did not return to the courtroom after a recess. Instead she kept climbing the courthouse stairs until she emerged on the roof, pondering whether to jump. Q13 broadcast an interview with her on Feb. 8. The next night, the station reported on a proposed court rule amendment designed to protect victims from abusive questioning by defendants representing themselves pro se.

The proposal would amend CrR 3.1 - Right to and Assignment of Lawyer by adding a new subsection:

(g) Pro Se Defendants  

(1) When a defendant has waived his or her right to counsel, the court, on a motion by the prosecuting attorney, on its own initiative, or at the request of a witness, and for good cause shown, may restrict the manner and means by which a defendant questions a witness.  

(2) Good cause is shown when the court finds by substantial evidence, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, that requiring the witness to be questioned by the defendant without restriction will cause that individual to suffer serious emotional or mental distress that will prevent the witness from reasonably communicating at the trial.  

(3) The court shall state on the record the basis for good cause.  

(4) When the court does not permit the pro se defendant to question a witness without restriction, the court may impose reasonable procedures including but not limited to:    

(i) requiring questioning by the defendant of the witness using remote audio-visual means when authorized by law;   

(ii) allowing stand-by counsel to question the witness with the agreement of the defendant,.  

Nothing herein precludes a court from using other means to control the courtroom including but not limited to prohibiting the defendant from approaching the witness during questioning and requiring the defendant to remain seated during questioning of the witness.

The Q13 story emphasized the clause in (4)(ii) that would have stand-by counsel question the witness, but only "with the agreement of the defendant."

One person who has commented on the proposal was on the jury in the case featured by Q13; her letter outlines ways the defendant's questioning was abusive of his victims.

The letter from the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys generally favors the amendment, with alternative language.

The Washington State Bar Association's letter opposes the change. Stephen R. Crossland, WSBA's president, argues that at best the change is unnecessary, because trial judges "already have the ability to control questioning of a witness by a pro se defendant, subject to constitutional limitations in light of the facts and circumstances of each case." At worst, he says, the rule – which does not mention constitutional protections – might lead judges to disregard them.

Reflections on Jury Duty

A News Tribune columnist talks about being called for jury duty. Kathleen Merryman, Jury duty a burden to some, a thrill and an honor to others, News Tribune, Jan. 25, 2012.

I was thrilled at the chance to be part of one of the fairest judicial systems on the planet. It has its flaws, and some of them run deep. But it demands that the accused see the faces of the peers who will decide the verdict. It requires that those peers be accountable to each other, and to themselves. It’s a mental stretch for participants, and discussions that stretch us beyond preconceptions are good for the health of democracy. We get to experience all that, even if we don’t serve on a jury.

Second Trial in Civil Sex Abuse Case Because of Juror Misconduct

A Shoreline pediatrician will have a second trial in a civil case brought by young men who allege he engaged in improper sexual conduct with them when they were minors. The doctor admits to much of the conduct but says it was a legitimate part of his mentoring the boys.

Originally there were thee cases filed by four young men and their families. The cases were consolidated. The jury ordered the doctor to pay damages to three young men and their families, but the sum was much lower than the plaintiffs had sought. Now two of the plaintiffs have withdrawn from the suit.

The retrial follows juror misconduct in the first trial:

• a juror failed to disclose that she and her husband had been sued for medical malpractice;
• a juror told other jurors about her experience of sexual abuse but had not disclosed it during voir dire;
• jurors shared newspaper stories and watched television news about the case.

Noted Pediatrician Accused of Preying on Patients Faces Jury ‐ Again, Seattle PI, Nov. 22, 2011.

The Court of Appeals opinion upholding the trial court's declaration of a mistrial is Kuhn v. Schnall, 155 Wn. App. 560 (2010) Legalwa.org link.

Poster Reminds Jurors to Focus on Courtroom

In an effort to keep jurors from going online to discuss cases or look up information outside the trial, the Washington State Courts are introducing a new poster with a picture of a smart phone and the headline "Focus on the Courtroom."

Focus on the Courtroom poster

The Courts' press release (Nov. 22, 2011) is here. 

New California Law Prohibits Jurors' Social Media Use

New California Law Prohibits Jurors' Social Media UsE, Citizen Media Law Project, Sept. 1, 2011.

California has adopted a new statute which clarifies that jurors may not use social media and the Internet – such as texting, Twitter, Facebook, and Internet searches – to  research or disseminate information about cases, and can be held in criminal or civil contempt for violating these restrictions. 

The new statute, 2011 Cal. Laws chap. 181, expands the state's existing jury instructions which currently, at the start of trial and prior to any recesses or breaks, admonish jurors not to discuss the case they are sitting on with each other or anyone else before deliberations. The current instructions make no specific mention of electronic research or communications.

Juror Held in Contempt, Gets Community Service for Effort to Friend Defendant on Facebook - News - ABA Journal

Juror Held in Contempt, Gets Community Service for Effort to Friend Defendant on Facebook - News - ABA Journal, Aug. 29, 2011. The headline summarizes it; I'll just add that it was a civil case, the young juror was male, and the defendant was female.

Batson for GLBT Challenge?

A ninth circuit appeal, argued Thursday, raises the issue of whether the peremptory challenge of a lesbian should receive Batson-type scrutiny. Potential jurors shouldn't be dismissed for being gay, court told, L.A. Times, Aug. 5, 2011.

Daniel Osazuwa, an inmate serving time for bank fraud, was convicted of assaulting a guard. His defense was that he was only trying to embrace the other man—a common way to greet someone in his home country of Nigeria;mdash;and that the guard reacted badly because the inmate is gay.

The prosecution says that its reason for challenging the juror "because she told the court she had close Nigerian friends when the panel was asked if anyone had positive or negative attitudes toward that nationality." Id. To me this stated reason seems at least as shaky as if the challenge were based on sexual orientation. Should an immigrant should be deprived of a juror who has friends of his nationality?

See also  How a Fight over Jury Selection Could Advance Gay Rights, Time, Aug. 8, 2011.

Jurors Online Discussed in New Journal

The Reynolds National Center for Courts and Media and Donald W. Reynolds School of Journalism (University of Nevada Reno) launched a new journal in February: the Reynolds Courts and Media Law Journal.

The first issue, Winter 2011, included articles on venue after Enron, guidelines for unmasking in public figure libel cases, and a summary guide on courts and media for judges.

The Spring 2011 issue has four articles on "Modern Media in the Courts":

• Judge Dennis M. Sweeney, When Worlds Collide: Digital Natives Enter the Jury Box, p. 121
• Genelle I. Belmas, That's What "Friend" Is for?: Judges, Social Networks and Standards for Recusal, p. 147
• Gareth S. Lacy,* Untangling the Web: How Courts Should Respond to Juries Using the Internet for Research, p. 169
•  Stacy Blasiola, Say "Cheese!": Cameras and Bloggers in Wisconsin's Courtrooms, p. 197

*Gareth is a 2011 graduate of the University of Washington School of Law.

Jury Selection and the Coase Theorem

The Coase Theorem says that parties will negotiate to an efficient distribution of goods—if they have perfect information and there are no transaction costs. Dru Stevenson takes this basic premise about an idealized economic world and uses it to frame his observations of jury selection, a phase of litigation where negotiation is typically absent: the rules and traditions of voir dire make the transactions costs very high.

Dru Stevenson, Jury Selection and the Coase Theorem (March 4, 2011), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1777278.

Not really into law and economics? The article is still worth reading for Stevenson's comments on jury selection. For instance:

the peremptory strike system actually maximizes uncertainty about the jury, rather than neutrality or fairness, by allowing lawyers on each side to deselect jurors who seem favorable to their opponent. In other words, we merely remove those whose biases seem most evident. Given the relationship between predictability and settlement, this means the peremptory strike system has a temporary chilling effect on settlements immediately following the voir dire segment of the litigation.

Id. at 6.

If you'd like to read more about the Coase Theorem—a lot more—see Steven G. Medema & Richard O. Zerbe, Jr., The Coase Theorem (1999), in Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. This huge, scholarly encyclopedia is on the web, free! By the way, Dick Zerbe, from the UW's Evans School of Public Affairs is an adjunct professor in the law school.

If you think that it would be worthwhile to know a little more about economics and you need an introduction (or a refresher), consider Grady Klein & Yoram Bauman, The Cartoon Introduction to Economics. (This excerpt has a little about the Coase Theorem on page 182.) By the way, Yoram Bauman teaches in the UW's Program on the Environment.

Jury Appreciation Month

According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, May is Jury Appreciation Month.

Although many people consider jury service on a par with waiting at the DMV, jurors are essential to our judicial processes. The federal Courts website's Educational Resources includes several items about jury service, including jury service basics and two videos on jury service. One of the videos--aimed at high school students--features two judges from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Richard Jones and Chief Judge Robert Lasnik.

If you are looking for books in the Gallagher Law Library on juries and jury service, try these subjects: Jury--United States and Jury selection--United States.

The National Center for State Courts website includes many sources on Jury Selection, Trial & Deliberations, including a link to its Center for Jury Studies.

Whether you have served on a jury, intend to practice law before a jury, or care about our fundamental freedoms, take a minute to appreciate jurors and juries.

This post, by Cheryl Nyberg, originally appeared in Gallagher Blogs. Reposted with permission.

Empirical Legal Studies

Empirical legal studies uses social science tools to examine law and legal institutions. These tools can include:

• surveys, e.g.:




• Attorney Satisfaction with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (Federal Judicial Center March 2010)


• Legal Needs and Civil Justice: A Survey of Americans: Major Findings from the Comprehensive Legal Needs Study (ABA 1994)


• Mary R. Rose, Christopher G. Ellison & Shari Seidman Diamond, Preferences for Juries Over Judges Across Racial and Ethnic Groups (2nd Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, 2007), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=998050.


• observation and analysis of legal events, e.g.:




• Mary R. Rose, Shari Seidman Diamond & Beth Murphy, Revisiting the Unanimity Requirement: The Behavior of the Non-Unanimous Civil Jury, Northwestern U. L. Rev. (forthcoming), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=825125


• Rafael I. Pardo & Michelle R. Lacey, Undue Hardship in the Bankruptcy Courts: An Empirical Assessment of the Discharge of Educational Debt, 74 U. Cin. L. Rev. 405 (2005), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=706761.


• Peter B. Oh, Veil-Piercing, 89 Texas L. Rev. 81 (2010) (dataset of 2,908 cases, 1658-2006), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1557972


• simulations, e.g.:


Valerie P. Hans et al., Science in the Jury Box: Jurors' Views and Understanding of Mitochondrial DNA Evidence, Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-021, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=998529 (mock trials)


• economic modeling, e.g.:




• John Armour et al., Shareholder Protection and Stock Market Development: An Empirical Test of the Legal Origins Hypothesis, University of Cambridge, CBR Working Paper ECGI - Law Working Paper No. 108/2008, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1094355

How can you learn about this diverse field? What are the leading works, what organizations work in the area, where are there standard datasets to use? A librarian at Fordham has prepared an excellent guide: Alissa Black-Dorward, Empirical Research (posted April 1, 2011). Tabs lead you to

• General Materials


• Statistical Software and Instruction


• Survey Research


• Banking


• Courts, Judges & Lawyers


• Crime and Criminal Justice


• Economics, Business & Finance


• Environment


• Evidence


• Foreign & International


• Health


• Intellectual Property


• Social Science Statistics


• State Statistics

Some of the information in the guide is tailored to Fordham, but you can find the equivalent here. For instance, our library has many of the books cited (although perhaps with different call numbers) and the UW has its own Human Subjects Division for ensuring ethical practices. ---------------------------------- This post is copied from Gallagher Blogs, on the assumption that many readers of Trial Ad Notes don't read the law library's blog (although you're welcome to, of course) but would be interested in this topic.

Mark Twain on Ability to Judge Expressions

A bit of my leisure reading reminded me of trial ad.

After visiting "The Last Supper"—and a lot of other famous European art—Mark Twain riffed on people's ability (or inability) to judge the meaning behind expressions.

It vexes me to hear people talk so glibly of "feeling," "expression," "tone," and those other easily acquired and inexpensive technicalities of art that make such a fine show in conversations concerning pictures. There is not one man in seventy-five hundred that can tell what a pictured face is intended to express. There is not one man in five hundred that can go into a court-room and be sure that he will not mistake some harmless innocent of a juryman for the black-hearted assassin on trial. Yet such people talk of "character" and presume to interpret "expression" in pictures. There is an old story that Matthews, the actor, was once lauding the ability of the human face to express the passions and emotions hidden in the breast. He said the countenance could disclose what was passing in the hear plainer than the tongue could.

"Now," he said, "observe my face—what does it express?"

"Despair!"

"Bah, it expresses peaceful resignation! What does this express?"

"Rage!"

"Stuff! It means terror! This!"

"Imbecility!"

"Fool! It is smothered ferocity! Now this!"

"Joy!"

"Oh, perdition! Any ass can see it means insanity!"

Expression! People coolly pretend to read it who would think themselves presumptuous if they pretended to interpret the hieroglyphics on the obelisks of Luxor—yet they are fully as competent to do the one thing as the other.

Mark Twain, Innocents Abroad, ch. 19.

What do you think? Did Twain have it right? If most people are this bad at reading faces, why do we put so much faith in a juror deciding that a witness's fidgeting and stammering means lying rather than sincerity or uncertainty rather than shyness?

Graphic: picture of young Mark Twain lifted from America.gov, Mark Twain Abroad.