Jury Instructions for the Modern Age two alternates. One of these jurors researched the chemical composition of cocaine online; the other two jurors spoke to two police officers and a friend, respectively.241 In the midst of the prosecution’s case in a rape trial, a juror posted the following message on an Internet listserv stating that she was “stuck in a 7 day-long Jury Duty rape/assault case ... missing important time in the gym, working more hours and getting less pay because of it! Just say he’s guilty and lets [sic] get on with our lives!”242 Two members of the listserv responded: one was an attorney in New York who wrote that the message was inappropriate, and recommended that the juror inform the judge of the situation. The juror did not inform the judge in the rape case, but the New York attorney informed defense counsel.243 The trial court initially denied a defense motion for postverdict voir dire of the jury, and was reversed.244 On remand the trial court questioned the juror, and determined that “there is nothing in the evidence before the Court to indicate that [the juror] was ever at any time exposed to any extraneous matters” and that “there is no basis for any further action in this matter.”245 The Supreme Judicial Court remanded again, ordering the trial judge to conduct a more probing investigation.246 The judge again reached the same conclusion, and the appeals court affirmed.247 In a 2005 decision, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed a cocaine trafficking conviction. Although the reversal was primarily based on the trial court’s improper removal of a juror for speaking to relatives about the case, the appeals court also noted that another juror’s research of the Massachusetts statute regarding impaneling, sequestering, and discharge of jurors “reinforces our conclusion that the verdicts cannot stand.”248 More recently, in a 2011 priest rape trial, a juror who was also editor of a local newspaper was removed after he posted several tweets during the proceedings, including one stating, “Sucks that you can’t tweet from the jury box. What’s the fun in that?”249 The juror later blogged about the experience, saying that “The judicial system – at least as represented by the Berkshire Superior Court in Pittsfield, Mass. – is light years behind the curve when it comes to the role of social media in fomenting and perpetuating democracy.”250
Michigan – Civil: Modern; Criminal: Modern Civil Instructions Michigan’s Model Civil Jury Instructions were amended in 2009 to specifically address juror use of the Internet and other resources during trial, and provide an explanation of the rationale behind the rules.
241. 46 Mass. App. Ct. 752, 710 N.E.2d 605 (1999). 242. Com. v. Guisti, 434 Mass. 245, 249-50, 747 N.E.2d 673, 678 (Mass. 2001). 243. Id. at 250, nn.6 & 7, 747 N.E.2d at 678, nn.6 & 7. 244. Id. at 253, 747 N.E.2d at 681. 245. Com. v. Guisti, 449 Mass. 1018, 1018, 867 N.E.2d 740, 740 (Mass. 2007). 246. Id. at 1018-19, 867 N.E.2d at 741. 247. Id. at 1019, 867 N.E.2d at 742. 248. Com. v. Rodriguez, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 660, 828 N.E.2d 556 (2005). The statute researched by the juror was Mass Laws ch. 234, § 26B. Id. at 678, 828 N.E.2d at 568. 249. Bob Gardinie, Rape trial of ex-priest now before jury: Deliberations set to start in case; juror dismissed after using “Twitter,” Albany (N.Y.) Times-Union, Feb. 9, 2011, http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Rape-trial-of-ex-priest-now-before-jury-1004872.php; see also Rosemary Armao, Big mouth in the jury box, City Brights Blog, Albany (N.Y.) Times-Union, Feb. 14, 2011, http://blog.timesunion. com/armao/big-mouth-in-the-jury-box/286/. 250. Seth Rogovoy, Twitter Rubs Up Against the Judicial System, The Rogovoy Report, http://rogovoy. com/news1824.html. Reynolds Courts & Media Law Journal
355