Jury Instructions for the Modern Age
Cases The Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed two jury verdicts in 2009 because of social media use by jurors during trial. In Wardlaw v. State, the court concluded that the trial court’s failure to question the jurors about the influence of an individual juror’s Internet research on “oppositional defiant disorder” required a reversal.231 A different panel of the same court reached the same conclusion in Clark v. State, in which a bailiff found in the jury room printouts from Wikipedia on various scientific issues in the trial.232 Issues of jurors’ use of the Internet arose in two Maryland cases in a single month, November 2009. In the corruption trial of Baltimore mayor Sheila Dixon, the defense initially sought a new trial after Dixon was convicted, because five jurors had become friends and discussed the case on Facebook.233 And although a juror in a murder trial admitted to researching the case on the Internet, the court instructed the jury to base their verdict only on the evidence in court, and the jury acquitted the defendant.234 A rule adopted by the Maryland Court of Appeals in 2010 allows cell phones and other devices capable of transmitting, receiving or recording information in the state’s courts, but bans the devices from jury deliberation rooms and from courtrooms without permission of the presiding judge.235 As originally proposed, the rule would have generally banned most cell phones and other electronic devices from courthouses.236
Massachusetts – Civil: Archaic; Criminal: Archaic Massachusetts has not updated its pattern jury instructions to account for social media and the Internet.
Civil Instructions In the Massachusetts model civil instructions, the instruction regarding trial publicity is similar to the criminal instruction: During the time that you serve on this jury, there may be reports about this case in the newspapers or on radio or television. You may be tempted to look at or listen to them. Please do not do so. The law requires that the evidence you consider in reaching your verdict meet certain standards; for example, a witness may testify about events [he/she] has personally seen or heard but not about matters told to [him/her] by others. Also, witnesses must be sworn to tell the truth and must be available for questions from the other side. News reports about the case are not subject to these standards, and if you look at or listen to such reports, you may be exposed to information, true or not, which unfairly favors one side and which the other side is unable to respond to.
231. 185 Md. App. 440, 971 A.2d 331 (Md. Ct. Special App. 2009). 232. No. 0953/08 (Md. Ct. Special App. Dec. 3, 2009) (unreported); see Andrea Siegel, Judges Confounded by Jury’s Access to Cyberspace, Balt. Sun, Dec. 19, 2009, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-12-13/ news/bal-md.ar.tmi13dec13_1_deliberations-period-florida-drug-case-jurors. 233. Julie Bykowicz, 5 Dixon jurors recalled as witnesses, Balt. Sun, Dec. 30, 2009, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-12-30/news/bal-md.dixon30dec30_1_juror-misconduct-new-trial-arnold-mweiner. Dixon eventually reached a plea agreement that included her resignation. 234. Lisa Beisel, Jury acquits man in attempted murder, The [Annapolis, Md.] Capital, Nov. 7, 2009, http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/top/2009/11/07-17/Jury-acquits-man-in-attempted-murder.html?ne=1. 235. Md. Ct. R. 16-110 (2010), available at http://mdcourts.gov/reference/rule16-110.pdf. 236. Tricia Bishop, New rule could end tweets from trials statewide, Balt. Sun, Feb. 22, 2010, http://articles. baltimoresun.com/2010-02-22/news/bal-md.twitter22feb22_1_cell-phones-trials-tweets. Reynolds Courts & Media Law Journal
353