Well, you may be in luck.
Instead of forcing law firms to pony up $20 million for the world’s greatest jury consultant, litigators can now invade the private lives of potential jury members all on their own, for the price of a laptop computer.
During the jury selection stage of a recent medical malpractice trial in Morris County, New Jersey, plaintiff’s counsel whipped out a laptop computer and, using the courthouse’s free Wi-Fi service, began researching the potential jurors by running a Google search with each of their names. This led to an objection by defense counsel and the following exchange between the presiding judge and the rogue researcher (as recounted in the Court of Appeals opinion):
THE COURT: Are you Googling these [potential jurors]?
[PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL]: Your Honor, there’s no code law that says I’m not allowed to do that. I — any courtroom –
THE COURT: Is that what you’re doing?
[PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL]: I’m getting information on jurors — we’ve done it all the time, everyone does it. It’s not unusual. It’s not. There’s no rule, no case or any suggestion in any case that says . . .
THE COURT: No, no, here is the rule. The rule is it’s my courtroom and I control it.
[PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL]: I understand.
THE COURT: I believe in a fair and even playing field. I believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity. Now, with that said there was no advance indication that you would be using it. The only reason you’re doing that is because we happen to have a [Wi-Fi] connection in this courtroom at this point which allows you to have wireless internet access.
[PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL]: Correct, Judge.
THE COURT: And that is fine provided there was a notice. There is no notice. Therefore, you have an inherent advantage regarding the jury selection process, which I don’t particularly feel is appropriate. So, therefore, my ruling is close the laptop for the jury selection process. You want to — I can’t control what goes on outside of this courtroom, but I can control what goes on inside the courtroom.
After the jury returned a verdict for the defendant at trial, the plaintiff brought an appeal challenging, among other things, the trial court’s refusal to allow his attorney the opportunity to access the internet during voir dire. In a somewhat surprising opinion, the New Jersey Appellate Court found that the trial court had erred in precluding the plaintiff’s attorney from conducting internet research on the potential jury members. Though the Appellate Division recognized the broad discretion usually afforded to the trial court in determining the proper procedure for jury selection, it noted that the trial judge had cited no authority for his ban on internet usage, nor was the issue addressed in the court rules.
Instead, the Court of Appeals found that as there was no suggestion that his laptop use was disruptive; the fact that plaintiff’s counsel “had the foresight to bring his laptop computer to court, and defense counsel did not, simply cannot serve as a basis for judicial intervention in the name of ‘fairness’ or maintaining ‘a level playing field.’ The ‘playing field’ was, in fact, already ‘level’ because internet access was open to both counsel, even if only one of them chose to utilize it.”
How’s that for recognizing the benefits of technology? Need to know whether Juror 11 has been using his daily blog to rail against the insurance company you represent? Or whether Juror 4 has been making any last-minute Twitter updates regarding his mistrust of the safety features on imported cars? Well, now you can access it all without ever leaving the comfort of your seat at counsel’s table.