Social media/networking websites such as Facebook, Myspace, and blogs are now being used as a part of jury selection in many courtrooms across the United States. Both prosecuting and defense lawyers are scouring these websites as a way of finding out personal information about the jury pool that could signify which side individual jurors might side with during a trial (Campoy). The question is whether or not the information gathered from these sources is actually credible in judging a juror’s character. Is the person that the lawyers see online the same person they will see in the courtroom?
Lawyers investigating social networking websites to help build their cases in trials is not a new phenomenon. Almost since the birth of these new social media outlets in the beginning of the 2000s they have been used to gather information about defendants, witnesses, and all other people involved in individual trials. As defense attorney Rick Robertson says, “Through what people post of Facebook you can get some perspective on how they would feel about excessive drinking by one of the parties, or about extramarital affairs.” (Dosst)
What makes lawyers any different? Personally, I agree with what these lawyers are doing. Why is that a witness can be analyzed, judged, and scrutinized based on things that they have posted on the Internet for the whole world to see, but not the people who are actually judging them. Some legal experts believe that the traditional way of having lawyers interview members of the jury pool one-on-one to see if they are suitable to be impartial in a trial is the way it should be. According to Jason Shultz of Berkeley Law School, "There are a number people who post who they want to be, as opposed to who they are." (Campoy) Forgetting about the component of jury selection, this argument seems to present a problem for anyone using social media to create a character of anyone involved in a trial. If we were to discredit judgments made by lawyers using information from these websites to select juries, than there are probably many pieces of evidence that can be discredited in trials across the world that are centered around a person’s “online character.” Just because someone makes their Facebook status something obscene or tweets an extreme opinion to their friends it doesn’t mean it is whom they really are, but it must be taken into account.
Whether or not the information attained from social media websites provides an exact truth as to a juror’s character, it must be considered in jury selection just like it would be if it were a defendant or witness. In many cases the information gathered on defendants, plaintiffs, or witnesses from social media websites have won or lost trials. For example, if a person brought a lawsuit for injuries received during a car accident, and then the next day said on Facebook that they wanted to go on a skiing trip that upcoming weekend (regardless if they actually did any physical activity) they would have a much harder time proving their case. (Oginski) Even if what is said on social media websites is not a truthful representation of a potential jurors’ thoughts, actions, or opinions it is the responsibility of a lawyer to be safe rather than sorry. A juror may be a different person in the social media world than they are in real life, but as a lawyer I wouldn’t want to wait until a trial that may include serious issues such as fraud, rape, or murder to find out.
Works Cited:
Campoy, Ana. "Searching for Details Online, Lawyers Facebook the Jury - WSJ.com." Business News & Financial News - The Wall Street Journal - Wsj.com. 22 Feb. 2011. Web. 22 Feb. 2011.
Dosst, Arezow. "Lawyers Use Facebook in Jury Selection: Robertson - Koons, Fuller, Vanden Eykel & Robertson, P.C." Home - Koons, Fuller, Vanden Eykel & Robertson, P.C. Web. 22 Feb. 2011.
Oginski, Gerald. "Twitter & Facebook Comments-Can They Be Used Against You in a New York Negligence Trial? | The Law Office Of Gerald Oginski, LLC." New York Medical Malpractice Trial Lawyer Representing Injured Victims | The Law Office Of Gerald Oginski, LLC. Web. 22 Feb. 2011.
It is baffling how many uses social networking, particularly Facebook, have. For many companies, Facebook has become a major factor in their decision making processes, such as hiring new employees. It was only a matter of time before it entered the court system. I think that Facebook can be an aid in deciding the jurors validity, however I do not think it should be the sole basis for decision making. I think it must be looked into with caution because some people do put on a facade through their Facebook page which in reality is nothing like them. This means that false allegations could be made on the jurors. Some more traditional critics may disagree with the practice of using Facebook to snoop for additional information, however as the technological world develops I predict that it will become the norm to use sites like this for more information on prospective jurors. Regardless how private people think their Facebook's are, there is always a way around these settings, which would allow lawyers the opportunity to gain additional information. As the technological world continues to develop, these practices will become more and more prominent, so traditional folks better prepare for the new techniques that are coming into existence.
ReplyDeleteI found it very interesting to learn that lawyers were using social networking sites to screen potential jury members. It actually makes a lot of sense. It allows the lawyers to get a real idea of who they have on their jury. Even though the jury members do go through a series of questions to find any biases, this is not always a reliable source. The information found on Facebook and Twitter provides lawyers with a candid picture of their jury. Like John pointed out, "Why is it that a witness can be analyzed, judged, and scrutinized based on things that they have posted on the Internet for the whole world to see, but not the people who are actually judging them?" Its a very valid point.
ReplyDeleteAlthough many argue about whether or not the posts you put on such social networking sites reflect your true beliefs, it goes to show that we all need to be careful about what we put on the Internet. Like Hayley mentioned, lots of companies use social networking sites to screen their employees. As a society, I don't think we are fully aware of the dangers of what we post on the Internet. From effecting our ability to get hired, to being used against us in court. I think that lawyers have every right to use social networking sites to screen the jury members. At the end of the day, the purpose of the jury is to provide an unbiased ruling. By having opinions or beliefs that might interfere with such a decision is not fair to the plaintiff/prosecutor or the defendant.
We all know that anything we post on the Internet, especially sites like Facebook, can be seen by more people than we may intend. These sites started as social networks meant for fun with friends, but are now scoured for incriminating information by the government, employers, and even lawyers. I don't believe that Facebook will be a good judge of character for people. Most of the pictures and information posted on Facebook are related to social gatherings. You typically don't see people taking pictures of each other while they are studying, but you will when they are out drinking. This greatly limits the type of information you can get about someone. It was meant to be a social networking site, and that's what it should be used for. I don't really see how lawyers can link any information found on Facebook to a case they're working on in a relevant way. This is a case where new trends in IT might not improve an old process.
ReplyDeleteWade makes a good claim that social networking sites do show the social side of people and usually not their entire personality. People do list many things that may interest them, things that they do, and post statuses of their views and opinions, though. There is information on these sites to be used, I mean after all, even if these people are lying about a few things, or making themselves look better, that is information that could also be used in a trial. There have been many posts regarding how social networking sites affect everyday affairs, and this is just another prime example. I believe that using these sites are beneficial more so than harmful because it is information that people are putting out themselves. Even if the information turns out to be false, that is information that can be used to tell you something about a person. I would say that people have to be careful when using these sites and think about why they use them, because if they put too much information on these sites, it is very possible for it to come back to haunt them.
ReplyDelete