SOCIALMEDIARESEARCHARTICLE
009
SOCIAL MEDIA RESEARCH
AFTER VOIR DIRE –
THE JODI ARIAS CASE
AUTHOR: Patrick C. Gorman
EMAIL: [email protected]
BIO: jshfirm.com/patrickcgorman
Forward-thinking attorneys are utilizing social media websites
such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn to perform
preliminary jury research during voir dire, but what happens
after the jury is empanelled? Courts have already held that
parties are expected to perform internet research before the
jury is selected, but it is unclear if the parties are expected, or
even allowed, to continue jury research after voir dire. In U.S. v.
Countrywide Financial Corporation, et.
al., No. 12 Civ. 1422(JSR). (S.D.N.Y. 2012),
for instance, the court admonished an
attorney for “improper conduct” where
he inadvertently viewed a juror’s
LinkedIn profile after the jury was
empanelled.
The failure to perform social
media research can carry serious
consequences. For example, in U.S. v.
Daugerdas, 867 F.Supp.2d 445 (S.D.N.Y
2012), one of the largest tax fraud
prosecutions in United States history,
the court determined that attorneys who
knew about a juror’s misconduct, but failed
to report it until after the verdict was final,
waived their client’s Sixth Amendment right to
a fair trial. More recently, in State of Arizona v. Jodi Ann
Arias, one of the most high profile murder cases in recent
years, the court faced the dilemma of what to do when a juror
utilized social media to express a view during the case, even
though jurors were specifically instructed not to view outside
media during trial.
Case Study – Jodi Arias
Jodi Arias was convicted of first-degree murder on May 8, 2013.
Following the conviction, jurors were tasked with determining
whether Ms. Arias would be sentenced to death or spend the rest
of her natural life in prison. After the first sentencing phase resulted
in a hung jury, the sentencing phase was set for retrial in late 2014.
During the retrial on sentencing, jurors were asked if they had
“read, seen or heard anything about the case in the media.”
After multiple months of testimony, the jury received the
sentencing portion of the case for deliberation on February
25, 2015. According to reports revealed after the verdict was
rendered, now infamous Juror 17 immediately made known that
she was not in favor of giving Ms. Arias the death penalty. After
several days of deliberations, the jury remained deadlocked 111, with Juror 17 the only person against the death penalty.
Prosecutors filed a motion to have Juror 17
removed from the jury panel, telling the court
that her Facebook page showed she recently
viewed the movie Dirty Little Secret, the
made-for-television movie regarding the
Arias case, and “liked” a list of local and
national media sites known for covering
the trial, including Nancy Grace from
the Headline News Network. When
questioned, Juror 17 told the court that
she watched Dirty Little Secret before
becoming a juror and, contrary to her
Facebook page, she had not done any
research related to the case or read or saw
anything about the trial in the media. Despite
the information on Juror 17’s Facebook page,
the court denied the motion to remove her. After
additional deliberations, the jury returned deadlocked 11-1
on whether to give Ms. Arias the death penalty, with Juror 17 as
the lone holdout. Consequently, Ms. Arias was sentenced to
natural life in prison.
Practical Considerations
Social media research after the jury is empanelled can be
equally as important as the social media research during voir
dire. Valuable information can be learned which may help in
seeking removal of an unfavorable juror. Before conducting
this research, counsel should ensure that the court will allow
the parties to continue their jury research after it is empanelled.
If new information is discovered about a juror, it is essential to
let the court know about the information immediately. Failure
to inform the court can have adverse results for the attorney
and client, including a waiver of the ability to make arguments
to strike the juror.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR PATRICK GORMAN
Patrick practices in bad faith, insurance coverage, and professional liability. He has served in a
variety of capacities for the DRI Young Lawyers Subcommittee, including currently serving as the
Vice Chair of Marketing. He is also active in the Papago Men’s Golf Association.
Contact Patrick at 602.263.1761 or [email protected]