ABA-466
|
| Although the line between "properly investigating jurors and improperly communicating with them" is "increasingly blurred," lawyers may (and in some states must) engage in a "passive review" of jurors' electronic social media (which is similar to "driving down the street where the prospective juror lives to observe the environs in order to glean publicly available information that could inform the lawyer's jury-selection decisions"). An electronically sent electronic source media ("ESM") feature notifying a juror that a lawyer has conducted such a search is not a prohibited "communication" to the juror (instead it "is akin to a neighbor's recognizing a lawyer's car driving down the juror's street and telling the juror that the lawyer had been seen driving down the street"). In contrast, lawyers may not send an "access request" to a juror, because that would be a prohibited communication ("akin to driving down the juror's street, stopping the car, getting out, and asking the juror for permission to look inside the juror's house because the lawyer cannot see enough when just driving past"). Trial judges can "dispel any juror misperception that a lawyer is acting improperly" when conducting such a search by discussing with jurors "the likely practice of trial lawyers reviewing jurors' ESM." Lawyers learning through a search of jurors' ESM that a juror has engaged in "criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding" must take remedial action, including reporting the misconduct to the court. The Ethics 2000 Commission apparently intended to expand the disclosure duty to such a person's "improper conduct," but Model Rule 3.3(b) is still limited to "criminal or fraudulent" conduct. Lawyers' disclosure duty upon learning of a juror's misconduct such as improper communications during jury service "will depend on the lawyer's assessment of those postings in light of court instructions and the elements of the crime of contempt or other applicable criminal statutes." |