Content area
Full Text
Abstract
Accessible in a myriad of ways, the Internet has come to define the contemporary population as a group dependent on instant informational gratification. The growth of Internet popularity has not occurred without bringing concerns. In the context of our justice system, the easily-accessible nature of the Internet has resulted in jurors having the ability to consult online social media sources in order to aid their decisionmaking and deliberations. Moreover, jurors are sharing their own perceptions and opinions of the trials in which they are serving. Both of these misuses pose a threat to defendants ' constitutionally guaranteed rights to a fair trial and an impartial jury. Understanding the importance of deterring such misconduct should prompt our courts, at all levels, to consider what the most viable options are for doing so. After establishing the different routes from which to choose, they must evaluate the psychological factors associated with deterrence, and determine which method works best in curbing potential jurors ' inherent need and desire to utilize online social media and Internet-ready devices.
INTRODUCTION
French philosopher and essayist Charles Peguy once stated that "perhaps nothing is as old as today's newspaper."1 Though Peguy' s observation was made nearly a century before the conception of most modern forms of communication, his statement has never rung truer than it does today. With the advent of the World Wide Web, the public's desire for instantaneous updates on the current state of the world around them has never been more apparent. This note chronicles the gradual increase in social media's influence on jurors' judgments of a trial or a defendant, with emphasis on the most recent information-gathering medium of particular concern to the interests of justice - online social networks.
The evolution of the Internet brought with it the conception of social networking sites, which are now accessible by anyone with a computer or even cellular "smart" phone.2 The millions who subscribe to these sites use them in countless ways. Perhaps the most concerning use is the public's utilization of these online outlets to broadcast their opinions about ongoing court proceedings and defendants that happen to be the subject of extensive media coverage.3 Whether it is the outside observers sharing their opinions for jurors to see, or...