Abstract
Our nation has long recognized the need for a fair and impartial jury in civil and criminal cases. At the heart of this pursuit for fairness is the juror, who sits as the factfinder in the process. For centuries, voir dire has served as the backbone for providing parties with a fair and impartial jury. Traditionally, during voir dire, jurors are questioned under oath by the court or counsel to determine their qualifications or disqualifications to sit as a juror in the case. The purpose is to expose potential bias in a juror that would render him or her unable to serve impartially. Since its inception, an essential aspect of voir dire has been that it is conducted under the supervision of the trial judge, in open court, in front of the entire prospective jury panel, the parties, and their counsel. However, in recent years, this centuries-old established practice of conducting voir dire has come under scrutiny with the spotlight focused on whether to integrate or preclude Internet research of jurors by counsel as a part of the voir dire process.
Anyone who has had the privilege of serving on a jury is familiar with the instructions given to a juror that they are not to perform any research about the issues in the case, the parties to the case, or the attorneys on the case. However, jurors are not told that counsel may be conducting research on them—delving into the jurors’ social media presence and any digital footprint that could be discovered through Internet research. Twenty years ago, it was nearly impossible to perform Internet research about prospective jurors as part of the voir dire process because no one had a social media presence and there was no easy access to people’s information online. By 2021, less than twenty years after the creation of the most primitive social media, 82% of the U.S. population had at least one social media networking profile. For most individuals, there is also a long tail of public information available on the Internet to anyone who may want to learn about the background of that individual. This new presence of information has compelled courts to confront a question that many are still struggling to answer—should attorneys be able to perform Internet research about prospective jurors as part of the voir dire process?
Courts and commentators across the country are split on how to answer this question. There are many judges who outright ban counsel from conducting any Internet research about prospective jurors. Other judges allow for unfettered research, and some have allowed research with limitations. Legal commentators who have addressed this issue all agree in some form that there needs to be clarity and certainty for lawyers on this issue. The purpose of this Comment is to discuss the issue of Internet research during voir dire; expand upon evolving reasons why Internet research about jurors during voir dire does not promote public participation and trust in the process; and demonstrate that, on balance, a rule prohibiting Internet research of jurors promotes judicial integrity and juror participation. Ultimately, this Comment will propose a court rule that will create uniformity on this issue by precluding any Internet research into the background of prospective jurors in preparation for and during the voir dire process, thereby preserving the time-honored traditional process of inperson, open-court voir dire.
Recommended Citation
Shotton, Hannah L.
(2024)
"Internet Frisking Jurors During Voir Dire: The Case for Imposing Judicial Limitations,"
Liberty University Law Review: Vol. 18:
Iss.
3, Article 4.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lu_law_review/vol18/iss3/4