Lawyers Using Facebook Research For Jury Selection 283
unassimilatible writes "Trial lawyers are increasingly using social networking sites like Facebook to research jurors in real-time during the voir dire process. Armando Villalobos, the district attorney of Cameron County, Brownsville, Texas, last year equipped his prosecutors with iPads to scan the Web during jury selection. But what of the jurors who have their privacy settings restricted to 'friends only?' Mr. Villalobos has thought of a potential workaround: granting members of the jury pool free access to the court's wi-fi network in exchange for temporarily 'friending' his office. Faustian bargain, or another way to get out of jury duty?"
yeah, that'll fail. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If a juror is smart enough to set his Facebook profile to "friends only", he's probably smart enough to be a juror.
Re:yeah, that'll fail. (Score:5, Interesting)
That assumes they want smart jurors that can reason independently, though that was actually the case when I served on a medical malpractice trial many years ago. For another drunk driving trial, I and several other prospective jurors were eliminated by the defense because we were in jobs that required close attention to details, and it appeared they were possibly trying to argue in some fashion about blood alchohol level limits.
Re: (Score:2)
re eliminated by the defense because we were in jobs that required close attention to details,
those prosecutor should be fired, as they are working against the citizen, sadly they will probably be promoted.
there are two sides to every argument. But, (Score:2)
They aren't working for the 'citizen' (I assume you mean the one being charged)
in that position, the responsibility of the prosecutor is to represent the values of the community AGAINST the value/decision of the individual.
in a tribe of 10 people, you work stuff out via conversation and with the possibility of expulsion (shunning)
in a tribe of millions, you have a DA who does his best to see the one person at loggerheads is punished.
Re: (Score:3)
you can do your best without piping the dice, since if you have a good case the conviction should be evident.
The goal of the prosecutor should not be a conviction at any price, it should be justice, and justice is not serve by selecting dimwits to serve on trial.
Re: (Score:2)
The goal of the prosecutor should not be a conviction at any price, it should be justice, and justice is not serve by selecting dimwits to serve on trial.
Right, but in the case mentioned the intelligent people were eliminated by the defense.
Re: (Score:3)
If a juror is smart enough to set his Facebook profile to "friends only", he's probably smart enough not to be a juror.
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
If a juror is smart enough to set his Facebook profile to "friends only", he's probably smart enough to be a juror.
If he's smart enough to be a juror, he's probably gonna get struck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some jurors have been threated when contempt if the nullification effort was not changed.
Keep in mind, judges are gods in their court room. If they want to have you locked up without a trial, they are literally judge and jury.
Re: (Score:2)
If I wanted to get out of jury duty, I'd just give them my slashdot ID (which I also use on Fark, Reason and Volokh). That should provide both the prosecution and defense plenty of reasons to excuse me. That or my stubborn refusal to answer questions without legal representation present.
Although, I have no objection to jury duty as long as the trial doesn't last more than a week or so.
Re: (Score:2)
free access to the court's wi-fi network in exchange for temporarily "friending" his office
It isn't his wifi network, it belongs to the courts...how is he authorized to give people access to it?
Re: (Score:2)
Since it specifies that the access is free, I'd guess it means that the court's wi-fi is available to anyone for a fee and his office will pay their fee in exchange for friending.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If I were the lawyer I'd only choose people who refused the bargain. Especially if the case was about privacy rights.
But really, should I even be on facebook anymore? What if one of my friends feels the need to expose my information to the courts the next time they land in a jury pool. Would I even know about it, I don't think Facebook makes it all that clear who my "friends" are friending.
I probably won't drop my facebook account though, because as a marketing vehicle I find facebook to be useful. But it's
Doesn't pass the smell test (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
in some places $10 is more then jurys make per (Score:2)
in some places $10 is more then jurys make per day.
Make jury pay more like $100+ per day so you can't buy a vote for pocket chump change.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You expect sense from the court system. That went out the window long ago - at least by the time they started letting prosecution and defense haggle over who should sit on a jury.
Jurors should be selected by lot, and reach their verdict by majority vote, not "consensus". People who think the current circus gives them a better shot at justice, should learn basic probability theory and look up Condorcet's jury theorem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If it's done by majority vote instead of "consensus", they won't need to worry about sitting there till they rot. They'll just call the vote and be done with it. In that less threatening situation, there's less room for aggressive "persuasion" of other jury members.
The demand for "consensus" does not help you. All it does is empower the persistent and headstrong at the expense of the careful and thoughtful. It ruins what's a jury's real strength: its diversity.
If you knew Condorcet's jury theorem, you'd kno
Re: (Score:2)
Majority vote for not guilty or civil cases would be reasonable, for a guilty vote in a criminal trial however a consensus should be required. The burden of proof being that no reasonable person would doubt their guilt, if anyone on the jury does doubt it, they should either be found not guilty or the case retried after a hung jury.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, that's how I feel. The current system means we, or at least the prosecution, has to carefully weed out crazy people, because one crazy person blows it up.
If instead we had 12 people but required just 10 to convinct, or, hell, added 6 more people, had 18 people, required 14 to convict, we'd probably end up a lot better.
And the _only_ people who should get weeded out are people with a demonstrable interest in the outcome of the trial, or who have actual other conflicts of interest.
We'd also end up
Re:Doesn't pass the smell test (Score:5, Interesting)
Jurors should be selected by lot, and reach their verdict by majority vote, not "consensus".
That's a terrible idea if your goal is to have the jury reach the "correct" verdict. When everyone has to agree the chances are much higher that the result will be more accurate. I was on a jury where we started out around 50%/50% after closing arguments, and it took quite a bit of discussion to get everyone to understand what was said, what the evidence was, and what our instructions were. There were several people who thought the guy was guilty because he wasn't a very likable guy, but it turns out that the combination of the evidence, the timeline presented by the prosecution, and most importantly our instructions from the judge forced a verdict of not guilty. If we had voted on it at the start, that guy would be in jail now.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe in theory, where all the jurors are rational actors who carefully weigh the evidence.
In reality, where things like race play a major part in jury votes, you're asking for majoritarian tyranny.
Questionable practice... (Score:3)
The Jurors aren't on trial and the Attornies shouldn't be able to do anything other than ask specific questions at Voir Dire as they've always done. This is a highly questionable practice they're taking on.
Re: (Score:3)
Especially quesitonable is giving jurors access to court wi-fi in exchange for participation. The jurors are hardly going to be neutral to that nice man who gave them web access during the boring selection thingie.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I think that jurors who want to ensure a fair trial should answer the first question (whether they might have potential bias because they know one of the parties or witnesses) by pointing out that the lawyer is making this offer, and let the judge sort it out.
No need to "friending" the office... (Score:3, Funny)
granting members of the jury pool free access to the court's wi-fi network in exchange for temporarily "friending" his office
Or, more easily, just offer the entire jury pool free access to the court's wi-fi network, and then firesheep their accounts...
Re: (Score:2)
TBH, that's where I thought the sentence that starts "Mr. Villalobos has thought of a potential workaround: granting members of the jury pool free access to the court's wi-fi network..." was going.
I suppose that's a bit too far on the "OMG h@x0rz" paranoia. Still, I have to agree with other posters... unless the facebook info is made available to the defense during the jury vetting process, this smacks of improper and unbalanced quid pro quo.
friending != full access (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The prosecutors don't get to stay 'Friends' during the trial so who 'follows around jurors' will lose their jobs.
s/b The prosecutors don't get to stay 'Friends' during the trial so no-one who 'follows around jurors' will lose their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Chicken and egg. In order to grant wifi accesss, the potential juror must allow the public prosecutor's office to be friends. However, the juror must have access to the account in order to approve any friend requests. Thus the juror could, when accessing the account to allow the friend, change their privacy settings.
Re: (Score:2)
Chicken and egg. In order to grant wifi accesss, the potential juror must allow the public prosecutor's office to be friends. However, the juror must have access to the account in order to approve any friend requests. Thus the juror could, when accessing the account to allow the friend, change their privacy settings.
<Artie Johnson>Very interesting.
You're absolutely right. Who brings their laptop to court anyway? Would they protest that you were taking notes? Some may have a tablet at this point, but wouldn't most be using their phones anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
I have my account set up so that by default everything is restricted, except to pre-configured groups. If I don't add a "friend" to one of the privileged groups, they don't get to see much.
Privacy Settings (Score:2)
Is it really that hard to set your information to "friends only" or even "friends of friends"? Unless you hang out with lot of lawyers (I have a couple in my friends list), how much information can they actually gleen from "This person only shares certain information with friends".
I have jury duty on March 10. We'll see how well that goes for them.
Re: (Score:2)
When I did my jury duty a couple years back, they didn't ask anything about social networking sites in particular, they did ask if there were any reasons or connections that might lead me to be partial. And they asked in several different ways about things which might reasonably related.
This seems to be unnecessary though.
Don't know about facebook... (Score:5, Interesting)
But I do know that they're watching twitter.
I sent out a tweet, during one my last jury selection, at lunchtime, that we were in the middle of jury selection.
no specifics, just a "we're at this point in the process"
After lunch, I was called into the chambers and dismissed, because they had seen my tweet and were afraid that I might
engage in "too much" social media and release too much information.
I was surprised that showed up on court that quickly, actually. I don't know how they found it, but I assume
that they're performing near constant searches using jurors names.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a very minor local "celebrity" ..
I'm on IMDB, too.
So of course I use my real name.
But I don't pull any punches, either.
Re: (Score:2)
When I buy a car, it does not come with a list of all the company executives who allocated a budget for its production. There is no list of the engineers who designed it, the marketers who promoted it, the factory workers who built it.
Didn't Saturn do that for a while?
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
why? (Score:5, Funny)
No Facebook == disqualified? (Score:5, Interesting)
granting members of the jury pool free access to the court's wi-fi network in exchange for temporarily "friending" his office.
So what if I don't have a Facebook account? Will I be automatically disqualified from serving on the jury?
Re:No Facebook == disqualified? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know at least some employers are now taking the slant that if you don't have a Facebook account you automatically either "have something to hide" or "are anti-social to the extreme". I'm neither of those, but am honestly too busy to check a stupid web site 3-4x a day.
I had a facebook account but had people getting pissy with me because I wasn't checking it often enough, so now I no longer have one.
Maybe this will get me out of jury duty as well as helping me avoid pretentious asshole bosses that I wouldn't want to work for anyways some day too? One can always hope.
Re:No Facebook == disqualified? (Score:4, Interesting)
"I know at least some employers are now taking the slant that if you don't have a Facebook account you automatically either "have something to hide" or "are anti-social to the extreme". "
and only a fool would work there. Honestly, are you about to be killed or thrown into debtors prison? I'd rather flip burgers than work for raging assholes at a company that would do that.
Re: (Score:2)
I know at least some employers are now taking the slant that if you don't have a Facebook account you automatically either "have something to hide" or "are anti-social to the extreme".
Sounds either urban legend-ish or astroturfy. I looked at your posting history and you don't seem astroturfy. So that leaves urban legend. Kind of like everyone has heard of someone whom got a job on monster.com, got a job thru linked in, got married from online dating, and now can't get hired without facebook. Uh huh...
Re: (Score:3)
Its sadly not urban legend. It happened to me a few years ago, I specifically found out because it was a management position at an electronics store. Being a geek I had things in common with some of the staff there and befriended one that had been working there for quite some time and he informed me of what had happened, it was just conversation at the time, I was already in a better job, though it was working more outside of my experience at that time.
The Manager there at the time was looking for a replace
Re: (Score:3)
I got a job through LinkedIn, so that's one out of four.
As for jury duty, there's no way they'd pick me, even though I have a Facebook account. Because I won't be their tool. If the purpose of the jury is to ratify the decision of the judge, they don't need one. If it's (as one prosecutor told unselected jurors in a pool I was in) to provide a random factor to scare the defendant into pleading when the prosecutor's case is weak, they shouldn't have one. If I were to end up in the jury room, I would not
Re: (Score:3)
That's what the judge will tell you. But the jury can do whatever the fuck it wants. It's one of the few places an individual (aside from a government official) can exercise any effective power at all, and that's why they try so hard to keep individuals who might actually do so off juries.
Consider what you would do,
Re: (Score:2)
I know at least some employers are now taking the slant that if you don't have a Facebook account you automatically either "have something to hide" or "are anti-social to the extreme".
What about: Restrict my networking activity to very exclusive circles. If someone can't find me online, they probably aren't worthy of my services.
Re: (Score:2)
No you are qualified. FB account holders will not survive if they are prevented from updating their status for days or weeks.
Good or bad not to be on FB? (Score:2)
I don't have a Facebook account--nor do I have a Myspace page, LinkedIn profile, or any other social networking connection. I don't even show up in the Google results for my real name until somewhere around the 20th page of results. This is yet another occasion where I'm glad I don't have those potential huge liabilities hanging around my neck, but I have to wonder: would an attorney consider this kind of non-presence a desirable characteristic, or a non-desirable one?
Re: (Score:2)
but I have to wonder: would an attorney consider this kind of non-presence a desirable characteristic, or a non-desirable one?
Non-desirable... if they can't pre-emptively read your demographic, how can they determine if you're likely to convict/exonerate the guy they have on trial?
"granting members of the jury pool free access" (Score:2)
That would be called jury tampering were the defense to do it.
Isn't this illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
They're not asking you to favor their client in exchange for free wi-fi.
They're asking to be able to investigate whether you're likely to favor their client in exchange for free wi-fi.
Awesome! (Score:2)
I'm going to set up a Facebook page with a status permanently set to "I can spot a guilty person a mile away!"
That will get me out of jury duty for now... until Facebook is made irrelevant or goes under.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like the 'Jury Nullification' page, it's pretty much a 'get out of jury free' card for ever
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to set up a Facebook page with a status permanently set to "I can spot a guilty person a mile away!"
That will get me out of jury duty for now... until Facebook is made irrelevant or goes under.
All you need is a college degree better than an Associate to get struck from the pool in most cases.
What about people without Facebook accounts? (Score:2)
I guess having a Facebook account makes you a more important person in the eyes of this DA...
As others have pointed out, I can't possibly believe that this kind of interaction between DA and potential jurors could be anything but harmful to the DA's court case. It seems like yet another avenue for a defendant's lawyer to as for a mistrial and/or appeal.
Seems like bribery (Score:3)
I don't have any real issue with checking them out on Facebook, or even getting them to friend you if they are dumb enough to do that. I think the line is clearly being crossed by offering them something (in this case internet access) for friending the prosecutor. It sets up a clear divide in the jury pool, as people who have open profiles and those who don't want to allow the prosecutor access don't get internet access. It also puts the defender at a disadvantage, since they obviously now have to offer them something to get the same access.
To me FB is like public records. It is out in the public and if you can see it, then it is fair game. But basically bribing the people to give you access crosses the line.
Just No. (Score:2)
Just say no, and remind then that they can't access your email, or your home either.
Anonymity for jurors (Score:3)
We may be a bit different here in Indiana, but we don't let the defendants know our names here. The judge was pretty careful about instructing us during the selection process. How could a jury possibly return a guilty verdict in a murder trial if the defendant knew their names and could then extract revenge?
This is just nuts!
That would actually prejudice me (Score:4, Insightful)
Thinking about it, if a lawyer for either side were to ask to friend me or something else, I would immediately tell the judge that I needed to be excluded because I've become prejudiced against that side.
And I would be telling the truth.
How to get out of jury duty... (Score:2)
Jury Duty (Score:2)
Faustian bargain, or another way to get out of jury duty?
Oh yes, because you know we all want to get out of jury duty. No participation in what the government does for me, thanks! Let 'em do whatever they want!
This is legal? (Score:2)
The prosecution bribes potential jurors in exchange for information on their background? There has to be something illegal about that.
Yeah, that, or... (Score:2)
this is just dumb (Score:2)
2. so I don't have a facebook account, I guess that makes me some sort of dangerous privacy advocate conspiracy theorist?
3. have you seen [google.com] what facebook users get into? Heck, having an account ought to disqualify you for being an advocate for the overthrow of the gubbamint.
Juries should just be random... period (Score:2)
I've never really understood the process of jury selection.
I know the theory is that you 'weed' out people who might have biases... but in the end... is not the process of selecting juries creating another bias.
Better we just stick to true randomness. A random selection of people. Maybe have them at most pass a basic literacy/logic test. Then aim for 80% agreement or something to knock off the oddballs.
Faustian bargain? (Score:2)
Lets see. Faust got in a exchange for his immortal soul: Satan himself as his servant.
A facebook befriending gets you a shared wifi hotspot.
Somehow I don't think this will make as good a story.
Probably also at the end God will slap you.
Re: (Score:2)
Simply GIVING black hats access? (Score:2)
So instead of having to forge access, I'm simply given it? Wonder how many facebook IDs I can snoop while waiting for jury selection?
Hmm... wonder if the DA does any online banking?
How is this bad? (Score:2)
The point of voir dire is to discover if the potential jurors are predisposed in some fashion (e.g. is a strong advocate of drug use, and it's a drug trial).
If someone has posted repeatedly on the topic (or the person) of the defandant or some of the witnesses in a semi-public forum, shouldn't that be fair game?
Facebook isn't like inviting people into your home, it's somewhere between the newspaper and the watercooler.
Perhaps it's "in scope" or not; obviously someone has to try it, and then the judges have
siting in a room for as low as $5 a day sucks you (Score:2, Offtopic)
siting in a room for as low as $5 a day sucks you need something to kill time.
Re:siting in a room for as low as $5 a day sucks y (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The cheap kindle does wifi only, correct?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:A solution: (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need to be so blatant. Just show up with an *athiest* sign on your shirt. Then you can't possibly be held in contempt, and no one will pick you anyhow. You know us Godless heathens can't be trusted!! ;-)
The urge to advertise your personal beliefs about God and insert them into unrelated discussions about jury selection is what is difficult to trust. I am not saying there is anything wrong with discussing such topics, in fact that's what I am about to do now that it's come up. It just seems out of place or off-topic in this particular discussion, like it's not driven by a desire to elaborate on the jury selection process at all but instead by the way the less-enlightened respond to what you believe.
It reminds me of those Christians who think every discussion about every subject is an opportunity to evangelize. The disservice they do to Christianity is tremendous. I say that as someone who does not believe that spirituality is something which can be organized and institutionalized. Herding the genuinely spiritual would be about as easy as herding cats. The self-aware understand the folly of group identities and the undue importance they are given. For that reason I ask that you please do not paint me with the brush of mainstream Churchianity. My point is, I believe that to a lesser degree, the disservice you are doing to Atheism is similar.
I realize you were making a joke but all the same it reflects a feeling of persecution. It sounds like you have been treated differently and maybe downright discriminated against because of your Atheism or you have seen this done to other Atheists. When Jesus taught people to love their neighbor he didn't say "oh, unless he doesn't believe what you believe". Therefore, the "Christians" who would learn you are Atheist and then treat you with anything other than genuine kindness and respect are phony because they don't really understand what they profess to believe.
It reminds me of what Mahatma Ghandi said. As a Hindu, he said "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are nothing like your Christ." You don't have to identify yourself as a Christian to understand that; all it takes is the ability to think for yourself. Ghandi certainly had that talent. I don't know if this would apply to you so please forgive me for being forced to generalize here: most Atheists I have personally met weren't terribly pro-Atheism. They were anti-religion. They didn't talk very much about rationality, logic, philosophy, etc. They primarily talked about religious people. It's sort of like most US elections -- few vote for a candidate they like. Instead they vote against a candidate they really don't like.
Sadly it is rare for me to meet an Atheist who wants to edify himself and build himself up; they were far too preoccupied with trying to take religion down a peg or two despite generally being smart people, the kind with whom one can reason. That is not an attack on Atheism because it is not unique to them. If anything, it's a lament about the human condition for this pattern is not at all limited to the subject of religion. It tells me something, at least about those particular Atheists I have personally known: they have been as damaged by organized religion as any of its followers and do not wish to let that go and deepen their understanding of who they are and what they believe.
Re:A solution: (Score:4, Insightful)
And that point would be wrong. Now if you said people who insert into conversations that they are atheist are treated just like most people who insist on inserting their religion into those conversations when the conversation has nothing pertaining to religion or the lack of one, I cold agree.
But if your going to a church and claiming you are atheist then complaining that they treated you poorly, guess what, it's your own fault not theirs. If you are injecting that you are atheist without anyone asking and they treat you poorly after, guess what, it's your own fault, not theirs. Why? Because spirituality or the lack thereof is something personal. People do not like it injected into the conversation when it doesn't belong there. And yes, people who claim to be christian or Jewish or Muslim all get treated poorly when they walk up to someone of a different faith and proclaim their religious views. It's your own damn fault because of your own actions, not your beliefs.
So if you are in a room talking with strangers about car, one of the quickest ways to become treated poorly will be to insert the fact that you are an Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Protestant, Roman catholic, New lifer' Jehovah's witness, or anything else. If you want to continue to be treated normally, then stick with talking about cars or whatever the discussion was. And yes, this phenomenon of everyone is out to get me for my beliefs is spouted by people of almost every religion out there. It's because they can't tell that it's their actions that offends people when you share an intament personal belief with with strangers unsolicited..
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively: (I've actually seen these):
Re: (Score:2)
Alternately, indicate that you've never met an honest police officer, and that their word is never, ever, to be trusted.
Re: (Score:3)
Jurors have no business using wifi while they're serving anyway.
This is only during voir dire - they're not serving yet. They're being picked over like cattle.
Re:That's Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That or people who actually want to be on the jury and know how to hide their opinions.
Re: (Score:3)
In a large portion of trials, especially high profile cases, there will be some evidence that the average person would not understand. That's what expert witnesses are for, not jury selection.
If you are charged with insider trading, you're not entitled to a jury of accountants, MBAs, and I-bankers. You get the same "average" jury as everyone else. Then both sides call experts who explain the technical details in a way a lay person can understand. There is an art to presenting the "right" amount of technical
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"How do you deal with cases like that network admin in California with a randomly selected group of people?
A randomly selected group of people aren't going to understand the nuances of some of the more specialized professions, like IT, unless you define "peers" very narrowly."
In San Francisco? You'll be able to find plenty of people who understand it in a trial. They'll definitely be weeded out.
Prosecution wants the defendant to appear to be an unsympathetic obnoxious nerd.
Re: (Score:3)
It's worth noting that you have no constitutional right to a jury "of your peers".
The constitution dictates the following regarding juries:
1) Criminal trials must be conducted by jury; (Article 3, Section 2)
2) The right to a "speedy and public trial," by an impartial jury, in addition to some other requirements of the trial; (6th Amendment)
3) Certain federal civil trials (over amounts > $20) guarantee a jury trial; (7th Amendment)
In the ideal sense, a jury of your "peers" would be a random sampling
Re: (Score:2)
Jurors have no business using wifi while they're serving anyway.
This is while they are in selection, before they are serving on a case. Their duties at that point involved sitting there wasting time and being available to answer questions about themselves. There's no reason for them not to be able to use wifi.
Re:IANAL (Score:5, Funny)
Sodomy was made legal by the supreme court.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Voir dire" - a French phrase translated as "jury tampering".
Not to be confused with "Very dire" - a common phrase translated as "on trial".
Re:This keeps coming up... (Score:4, Funny)
More fun to be at least a little obtuse and explain that "no, I do not have a Facebook".