A court will almost certainly take the view that jury duty is not just a legal obligation; it's a ... [+]
The jury selection process in former President Donald Trump's criminal trial in New York was truly like almost no other case in history. Nearly 200 potential jurors were brought in, and lawyers on both sides were allowed to comb through the answers the prospective jurors provided orally in court to a set of 42 questions to help determine impartiality. In addition, lawyers scoured through social media for posts that could reveal whether the people in the jury pool may have had hidden biases or extreme views.
While there had been no bombshell revelations, this deep dive into social media could have potentially revealed proverbial "skeletons in the closet," and a question could be asked whether any juror should have to endure such a deep dive in the past.
"In today's interconnected world, privacy and social media seem to be at odds. The allure of '15 minutes of fame' has become a daily pursuit for many, as the temptation to impulsively share our thoughts, argue, and self-celebrate via social platforms is more irresistible than ever. But there are consequences of willingly putting ourselves on display," suggested Craig Barkacs, professor of business law and ethics in the MBA programs at the Knauss School of Business at the University of San Diego.
Social media has become a treasure trove of personal data, much of which an individual might not want to be revealed to the world—especially if old posts have been long forgotten.
"From public posts to private messages, our digital footprints reveal more about us than we realize. Intelligence agencies, law enforcement, and private investigators leverage this wealth of information to piece together profiles and uncover hidden connections," added Barkacs.
We have seen how past posts—some made a decade earlier—have resulted in calls for individuals to be fired. Legal teams have far greater resources than some employers to dig deep into those posts.
"Social media and other electronic vessels have been lauded as outlets for free speech. But free speech comes with a cost; lack of privacy," warned James Bailey, professor of management at The George Washington University School of Business. "If someone mouths off about another on X/Twitter and that post is relevant for a given position, it should be used. Free expression isn't free."
This would serve as a reminder to be careful what you post, as it could come out in court—even if you're not the one on trial!
"When will people learn that everything they post on the internet—social media or otherwise—is open book," pondered Bailey.
Limits To Using Social Media
It is common in high-profile criminal and even civil cases for jurors to be instructed not to do any investigating of their own, and to avoid access to the media that could impact their impartiality. That will likely include the use of social media.
By law, an employer cannot fire, discipline, or threaten such action, against an employee who is summoned for jury duty or chosen to serve on a jury, even for a long trial. Yet, in most cases being self-employed isn't a valid excuse for being excused from service on a jury. So what happens to individuals who rely on social media for their livelihood, new questions are being raised.
"The intersection of jury duty and one's livelihood certainly presents challenges for individuals attempting to accommodate the legal system and their workplace responsibilities. In an era of social media and near-constant connectivity, the difficulties are even more pronounced," explained Barkacs. "Courts fully recognize the potential impact of social media on juror impartiality. Updated model jury instructions explicitly caution jurors about the ways in which social media can undermine their ability to deliver an impartial verdict."
Individuals whose careers revolve around social media, including PR professionals, marketers, influencers, and small business owners—face a unique dilemma. Their work may involve daily use of online platforms, yet serving on a jury demands unwavering impartiality.
While jury duty is a civic duty, it can clash with workplace obligations," said Barkacs. "Courts recognize this challenge but prioritize the integrity of the trial process. Balancing jury duty and workplace obligations is a complex challenge. As society evolves, courts must adapt their instructions and procedures to accommodate both justice and jobs."
However, Bailey argued that juries should be lock-boxed from using social media, regardless of how it could impact one's job or career.
"Control of information presented in the courtroom is, and always has been, carefully controlled," said Bailey. "It doesn't make any difference if someone's main living is through social media. None of us can do our work while on jury duty."
A court will almost certainly take the view that jury duty is not just a legal obligation; it's a vital part of our democratic system.
"Finding that delicate equilibrium between civic duty and workplace responsibilities is essential for the integrity of our legal system," said Barkacs, "While respecting individual livelihoods."
