BBM: You must live in England. In the United States we have hundreds of channels. NOTHING is more far-reaching than TV.
But I do use Facebook and didn't really need the lecture on how it works. Yes, every new technology has its own features, but long before FB "likes" were broadcast, people called their neighbors on the phone to say, "Turn on, Nancy Grace! She's talking about the Zimmerman case." If you look around here, you'll find posters spreading the word whenever their favorite case is discussed on TV.
Yes, FB is more conveniently interactive than much TV, but that's not to say TV viewers haven't always had ways (phone calls, mail) of interacting with their favorite programs. Some programs (see, again, Nancy Grace) quite encourage viewers to call in and express opinions.
Yes, FB and Twitter may provide prosecutors AND defense counsels with ways to know what potential jurors are thinking. So this is a new facet in the life of a jury consultant. But researching the jury pool has never been against the law or against the canon of judicial ethics. So I don't believe this issue will even be discussed by the Bar.
I said above that I'm glad the Florida Bar is taking up the issue of legal ethics and social media; obviously, the canon of ethics should be revisited as technology changes.
But I was responding to posts that insisted it was OBVIOUS O'Mara has "crossed the line" by using Facebook and Twitter. And so I ask: obvious to whom and in what way? To my eye, he's simply using the resources made available by the modern world.
And let's remember that both sides will be able to ask potential jurors about their use of social media regarding the case during voir dire.
I have offended you! I was pointing out the
effect of how FB works. I guess I failed. Fact is, I stay away from FB and twitter and know only rudimentary stuff about them. The point I was making is that FB has the potential that TV does not have- to go viral. The viral stuff then ends up on TV, I have seen it.
There's a line between pragmatism and ethics and the concepts are not interchangeable.
"Researching the jury pool"? How about influencing the jury pool?
FB is immediately interactive unlike TV. Most people are too lazy to do snail mail, even email, if they can voice their opinions in real time.
As for asking potential jurors during voir dire regarding the case and their use of social media, that is the point I'm making- an exclusive FB site from the defence
encourages people to interact, thereby reducing the jury pool. It goes
viral, something TV cannot do. It is far reaching in a way that TV can never be.
You seem to accept the jury consultant as a fact of life. Who says?
I live in Canada, no slouch in the gazillion channel department. The internet is way more far reaching than TV could ever be, in multi-faceted ways and so is FB. People don't even need to watch TV when there is YouTube, and online video streaming. We will have to agree to disagree on that point.
And finally, no it's not against the law to research the jury pool. But it may contravene judicial ethics if the site is used to
manipulate and taint the jury pool.
