Facebook pages and Twitter feeds checked in court
As the jury selection process began in the bribery trial of state Sen. Ulysses S. Currie, the names of potential jurors were removed from their questionnaires before the forms were returned to lawyers.
The redacting was done at the request of federal prosecutors - but not for the jurors' safety. It was meant to keep defense lawyers from Googling them before the trial, which is set to begin next week.
If that happened, the court's "supervisory control over the jury selection process would, as a practical matter, be obliterated," prosecutors wrote in a letter to U.S. District Court Judge Richard D. Bennett.
Many judges, mindful of the potential for mistrial, now regularly remind jurors to steer clear of social media sites along with traditional news outlets when deliberating a case. But the rules are murkier for lawyers, who are increasingly turning to Facebook, Twitter and similar websites to help them make decisions during jury selection, which can make or break a case.
Defense lawyers in the 2009 public corruption trial of Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon performed Internet searches on prospective jurors as they were being questioned in the courtroom. A Texas prosecutor reportedly equipped his staff with iPads so they could research jurors using courthouse wi-fi. And several companies already make jury selection "apps" to help track the information.
A New Jersey appellate court ruled last year that such behavior was permissible if both sides have access to the technology - an unpublished opinion that seems to open the door for other courts to follow suit.
As Maryland's assistant U.S. attorneys noted in their letter - and others have long known - there's a treasure trove of personal information about many individuals available online.
"On Facebook, for example, which is searchable by name, many people post photographs of family and friends, list their political views, share their likes and dislikes in all facets of life, and post comments on a myriad of topics," the federal lawyers wrote.
They should know. Prosecutors routinely use evidence mined from the Internet.
And it can be eye-opening. Baltimore gang members have posted photos of themselves with weapons and wads of cash on MySpace. An alleged Maryland terrorist urged hatred toward "Any 1 who opposes ALLAH" on Facebook. And a Rosedale McDonald's employee posted the violent beating of a transgender woman on YouTube.
The Internet "is a tremendous source of information," Maryland U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein said in an interview last week. He just doesn't believe that information about jurors should be accessed before trial.
It's rare that attorneys have the chance to see juror names pre-trial, anyway. It only happens when questionnaires are used in capital cases, he said, or in "high-profile cases," like Currie's. The 74-year-old Prince George's County Democrat is accused of accepting bribes from Shopper's Food Warehouse executives in exchange for legislative favors.
Rosenstein said his office asked for pretrial anonymity for the prospective jurors in the Currie case because of concerns over privacy and to allow the court to control the vetting process. "We don't think anybody should be investigating prospective jurors before they get to the courthouse," he said.
After they arrive, however, the Internet is often fair game. That's part of the appeal in using social media sites to learn people's backgrounds - all sorts of information is often readily accessible in seconds, says Caren Morrison, an assistant professor at the Georgia State University College of Law.
"There's a whole sort of generation of lawyers who used to pay investigators to drive by houses to see if there were kids [in the yard] or [political] bumper stickers on their cars. Now they can do it instantaneously," Morrison said.
William B. Purpura, a criminal defense attorney, says searching social media sites is like "having access to an extra jury consultant" who doesn't charge.
"Do they like dogs? Do they like guns? Do they like girls? Whatever they like, they post," Purpura said. "It's right there in front of you."
Time constraints limit what one can find in a few minutes, he said. And he's more likely to perform Internet searches on a witness than on a potential juror. But he doesn't do much of either in Maryland's federal courthouses, because the reception is terrible.
"We don't have wi-fi in our courtrooms," acknowledged Deborah K. Chasanow, chief judge for the U.S. District Court of Maryland. She hadn't yet heard any discussion of lawyers' using social media during jury selection, though she expects it may become a bigger issue as time goes on.
"It's obviously evolving," she said.
By Tricia Bishop, The Baltimore Sun
Source: The Baltimore Sun