Jury Instructions for the Modern Age deliberations.54 After an in camera hearing during which the juror was questioned about his general media and social media use during the trial, the court refused to remove the juror, finding that the juror “is one conscientious guy trying very much to comply with all the rules and regulations that I’ve established, more so [than] I would ever imagine that a juror would do. And I think that, you know, I’ve heard him and I don’t have any trouble with keeping him on the jury.”55 The defense objected, but was overruled. After the senator was convicted, he moved for a new trial on this and other grounds. The court denied the motion, finding that the defendant had not shown any outside influence on the juror that could have affected the verdict.56 Shortly after the judge denied the new trial motion, Philadelphia magazine reported that the jurors heard about the questions regarding the Internet postings.57 This led the defense to renew its motion for a new trial, which was similarly denied.58 The defendant has appealed this ruling.59
Fourth Circuit – Civil: No Instructions; Criminal: No Instructions The Fourth Circuit has not adopted model civil or criminal jury instructions.
Fifth Circuit – Civil:Archaic ; Criminal:Archaic Civil Instructions The Fifth Circuit’s Pattern Civil Jury Instructions, last updated in 2006, refer to avoiding “news reports of the trial,”60 and do not mention the Internet or social media.61
Criminal Instructions The Fifth Circuit’s pattern criminal instructions last updated in 2001, similarly do not mention the Internet or social media. Now that the trial has begun, you must not read about it in the newspapers or watch or listen to television or radio reports of what is happening here. The reason for these rules, as I am certain you will understand, is that your decision in this case must be made solely on the evidence presented at the trial.62 54. U.S. v. Fumo, No. 06-319, 2009 WL 1688482, at *58, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51581 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 2009). The postings were discovered by a local television station. The juror saw the television report (accidently, he said, after watching an entertainment program), and immediately began deleting the posts. Id. 55. Id. (quoting transcript of In Camera Hearing 34, held Mar. 16, 2009). 56. Id., 2009 WL 1688482 at *67. 57. See Ralph Cipriano, Power: Fumo, After the Fall, Philadelphia magazine, July 9, 2009, at 4 (internet version), http://www.phillymag.com/articles/power_vince_fumo_after_the_fall/page4 (p. 4 of 6). The magazine article also reported that one juror’s co-workers made her aware of excluded evidence. Id. at 3. 58. U.S. v. Fumo, 639 F.Supp.2d 544 (E.D. Pa. 2009). 59. U.S. v. Fumo, No. 09-3389 (3d Cir. filed Aug. 18, 2009). Fumo’s appeal was filed as a countersuit to the government’s appeal of the sentence imposed. See U.S. v. Fumo, No. 09-3388 (3d Cir. filed Aug. 18, 2009). Both appeals are pending. See also Robert Moran, Fumo lawyers file brief seeking new trial, Phil. Inquirer, Feb. 11, 2011, http://articles.philly.com/2011-02-11/news/28350489_1_fumo-lawyers-eric-wuest-samuel-j-buffone. 60. Pattern Civil. Jury Instr. 5th Cir. 2.1 (2006) (cautionary instruction for first recess). 61. See also Pattern Civil. Jury Instr. 5th Cir. 1.1 (2006) (preliminary instructions admonishing jurors to “not read any newspaper account of this trial or listen to any radio or television newscast concerning it.”). 62. Pattern Crim. Jury Instr. 5th Cir. 1.01 (2001).
316
Volume 1, Issue 3