Popular Culture Review Vol. 28, No. 2, Summer 2017 - Page 26

2 from the panel. Even after questioning by the judge about his Internet activity and receiving an additional admonishment, Juror 2 continued to tweet during the sentencing deliberations. He posted, “If its wisdom we seek . . . We should run to the strong tower.” and, “Its over.” [sic] 16 The court denied the appellant's motion for new trial, finding no prejudice. Nevertheless, the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed its decision. It held that the appellant was indeed denied a fair trial since Juror 2 disregarded the court’s instructions and tweeted about the case. It provided, “Because of the very nature of Twitter as an online social media site, Juror 2’s tweets about the trial were very much public discussions. Even if such discussions were one-sided, it is in no way appropriate for a juror to state musings, thoughts, or other information about a case in such a public fashion.” 17 The court recognized that the risk of prejudicial communication might be greater when a juror comments on a blog or social media website than when he/she has a discussion about the case in person, given that the universe of individuals who are able to see and respond to a comment on the Internet is significantly larger. 18 Other examples of inappropriate juror postings include a Michigan juror who made a Facebook post the day before the verdict was announced. She stated that she “was actually excited for jury duty tomorrow . . . it’s gonna be fun to tell the defendant they’re guilty.” 19 In another case, a juror made a Twitter post that said, “I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else’s money.” 20 B. Conducting Search-Engine Research Ordinarily, conducting online research to discover information is viewed as a favorable practice. The Internet enables people to become knowledgeable on a myriad of topics with the click of a mouse. It has a negative impact, however, when a juror uses it to investigate a case where he or she is the determiner of the facts. Unfortunately, jurors are using search engines like Bing, Chrome and Safari to acquire information about the cases they are reviewing. “The modern potential juror has, at their fingertips, more information than “the most resourceful journalist” 16 Id. at 247. Id. at 248. 18 Id. at 246. 19 Martha Neil, Oops. Juror Calls Defendant Guilty on Facebook, Before Verdict, September 2, 2010. http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/oops._juror_calls_defendant_guilty_on_facebook_though_verdict_isnt_in. Last accessed May 10, 2017. 17 20 Zora at 587. 21