Whether or not Kentucky passes a law regulating internet research and communications by jurors is a MUST DO admonition in all jury trials in Kentucky. It is not. A juror can research the following:
- Lawyers and their firms and their blogs and their backgrounds and their verdicts and anything else they want to post, publish, or polemicize.
- Law - statutes, case law, ethics opinions, articles, and law firm commentary and blog posts.
- Social networking sites - all of them!!!
- News stories on the accident, the lawyers, or whatever the juror deems relevant.
- Tort reform, deform, verdicts.
The list is endless from weather on the day of the accident to whether or not the lawyer has written anything, been arrested, been seen in the plush homes of Louisville or even society events. Campaign contributions and political affiliations.
Everything but listen to the case and observe the instructions.
And this is just from the juror's side of the house, and to think, some judges are bent out of shape on juror attire! For crying out loud, sweats and gym clothes are worn to church, to the opera, and to eating establishments.
If trial participants are entitled to a cross-section of the community, then some will wear whatever they feel comfortable in. We don't pay them for their fashion sense but their common sense.
Imagine the hue and cry should a juror be challenged or removed for the cut of their jib and swash of their buckle as opposed to their ability to be fair, impartial and follow the iaw.
However, one cannot argue with the fact that unlimited internet access is a recipe for trouble.
Of course, the assumption is that the juror will venture into the fast lane of the internet highway, but let us not forget that blogging and web site commentary is also susceptible to abuse by lawyers and litigants alike in an effort to passively put forth their message to jurors and judges alike.
In Kentucky, we had the case where the pending custody dispute prompted a biological father to post and post and post nonstop about his case. And it is unknown if his lawyer or the court tried to ring him in.
Well, nuff said. Here is a WSJ post worth reading. Forewarned is forearmed folks.
In a world where countless tweets, status updates, mobile uploads, emails and comments flood the Internet every nanosecond, there are still places where all of it is unacceptable – namely, the courtroom.
Sparked by growing concern over jurors’ use of cell phones during trials, California lawmakers passed a bill last week requiring trial judges to explicitly inform jury members that bans on outside research apply to wireless and electronic communication, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
The law will make violations of the revised statute punishable by up to six months of jail time for criminal contempt, the ABA Journal states.
In one recent case, a jury foreman posted photos of the lethal weapon – a 15-inch saw-toothed knife – on his blog and wrote up comments about the defense lawyer as “whacked out” and having a “Columbo detective-style of acting stupid,” according to California Lawyer magazine.
The jury convicted the defendant of first-degree murder, and the judge denied the defense’s request for a new trial even given the juror’s off-kilter behavior.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill last year on the grounds that existing judicial warnings were sufficient, according to the Chronicle. The new law will go into effect next year.
Louisville attorney Finis Price will be speaking at the 
