Co., et al., members of the jury used electronic communication devices during deliberations to access a press release issued the day before by Ford, the defendant, that publicized its fourth quarter loss of nearly $6 billion. Te jury held that the wrongful death and personal injuries of a husband and wife were caused by the defendant driver, but allocated no fault against Ford in plaintiffs’ claims of a defective roof. Counsel’s conversations with jurors after the verdict revealed that nine of the 12 jurors refused to find Ford culpable, because of its substantial losses.29 In the highly publicized corruption trial of former
Pennsylvania state senator Vincent Fumo, one juror posted updates on his Twitter and Facebook page, including “stay tuned for a big announcement on Monday everyone!” Te juror was questioned, but allowed to deliberate after the judge found his testimony credible that he had not received any outside influences.30
Similarly, in an Arkansas defective
product case, a juror posted a comment on Twitter a few days before the verdict was rendered, including one that the defendant corporation would “probably cease to exist, now that their wallet is $12 million lighter.”31
making sure they understand the possibility that their on- line posts will be used, and you must do your best to use the posts of others, including the opposing party and jurors, to maximize your client’s chances at trial. If you are still stumped or overwhelmed by the e-world of social networking, just ask a 13 year old.
Biography John J. Cord, Miller & Zois, LLC, graduated from the
University of Colorado School of Law. He concentrates his practice on assisting victims of automobile negligence, medical malpractice, and defective products. He is licensed to practice in Maryland, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Minnesota. He is a member of the American Association for Justice and is a former chair of the MAJ Technology Committee. Read his blog at
www.drugrecalllawyer.com, and follow him on Twitter at @johnjohncord. Robert K. Jenner is a principal in the Baltimore,
Te judge denied
defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict, noting that there was no indication that the juror was influenced by outside information, and did not appear to be partial to either party before deliberations.32 Te San Francisco Superior Court has proposed a rule
that would include a cover sheet on juror questionnaires with the warning: “You may not do research about any issues involved in the case. You may not blog, Tweet, or use the internet to obtain or share information.”33
In one San Diego
case, a judge required jurors to sign declarations under the penalty of perjury before and after service attesting that they would not and did not use “personal electronic and media devices,” including cell phones, and computers, to research or communicate about any aspect of the case.34
Conclusion Regardless
of whether you embrace technology,
you cannot adequately represent your clients in the 21st century unless you have some working knowledge of online social networking. Your clients use it. Te witnesses use it.
Opposing counsel uses it. You have to protect your clients by 29 Gessling v. Ford Motor Company, et al., Case No. 04-CV-167401 (Mo., Boone County Circ. Ct.). Counsel for plaintiffs raised the issue of the “untimely” press release with the judge, but to no effect.
30 U.S. v. Fumo, No 06-CR-319-03 (E.D. Pa., Jun. 17, 2009). 31 Deihl & Nystrom v. Stoam Holdings, (Ark., Wash. County Circ. Ct). 32 Martha Neil, ABA Journal, “Juror Tweets in $12.6M Case Teach Lawyer a Lesson: Ask About Web Use,” 4/8/09,
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/sweet_news_for_plaintiff_in_12.6m_ case_jurors_tweets_wont_change_verdict
33 See n.38, supra. 34 Id.
•• • •
Trial Reporter / Winter 2010 53
Maryland law firm of Janet, Jenner & Suggs. He has 25 years experience representing consumers against the manufacturers of dangerous pharmaceutical drugs and defective medical devices. Rob has been honored by his peers for inclusion in the Best Lawyers in America® the Maryland Superlawyers®.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68