Judge in L.A. City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas’s Corruption Trial: No Lawyer Internet Research on Prospective Jurors
From U.S. v. Ridley-Thomas, decided yesterday by Judge Dale Fischer (C.D. Cal.):
Defendant Mark Ridley-Thomas seeks the Court’s permission to engage in {internet-based} background research to seek out public information related to the prospective jurors in the venire. The government opposes this request.
The Court recognizes that it has wide discretion over jury selection and almost certainly has the discretion to approve Defendant’s request. Unfortunately, despite years of widely available social media profiles, there is no authoritative federal guidance on the proper use—or denial of use—of these tools in jury selection. Defendant cites opinions from various state professional organizations approving of—or at least allowing—the practice, but these are primarily focused on the ethical implications of juror research and not whether it is a good idea from the perspective of the administration of justice.
The Court recognizes that a number of courts have allowed the kind of juror research Defendant seeks, particularly in state courts. Defendant even cites two federal cases where the district court found, after trial, that defense counsel should have conducted internet searches during voir dire to find objectionable material on jurors that was uncovered later. Obviously, if the Court forbids such research, Defendant will not later be penalized for not engaging in the searches.
The Court’s objections to the kind of juror research that Defendant seeks were well-summarized by Judge Alsup when he considered a request to allow juror research in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2016). This Court, like Judge Alsup, is very concerned that if and when jurors discover that the lawyers have conducted research into their personal lives, the jurors will believe that they are justified in ignoring the Court’s admonition not to conduct their own independent research. See id. (“The one-sidedness of Oracle’s approach will be hard to accept and therein lies the danger.”).
The Court anticipates that many prospective jurors would be annoyed and insulted to find that their mandatory, compelled jury service also includes having their lives searched through by the attorneys in the case. It is one thing to sit on a jury; it is another to
Article from Reason.com
