New York City — Judges from Maryland, Kansas and New Jersey urged legal reforms on February 9, 2011, to protect jury trials from the risks of pervasive internet access and social media. At the LegalTech 2011 conference hosted by ALM, the panel ‘Why the Legal Industry Needs to Change and Embrace Technology’ highlighted how smartphones and online platforms undermine trial integrity.

Retired Circuit Court Judge Dennis M. Sweeney of Howard County, Maryland, led the discussion. He detailed threats from jurors conducting unvetted web searches, posting on social networks and sharing deliberations via microblogs. ‘Wireless communications and the internet intersect with the need for fair trials in dangerous ways,’ Judge Sweeney said, according to attendees. His views echoed a recent article he wrote for the Journal of the Maryland Bar Association.

Judge Sweeney pointed to everyday juror needs—coordinating family schedules, paying bills, managing work—that require device use. Yet this access opens doors to external information not presented in court. Jurors, he noted, now tap vast web resources with a single click, from Google Maps with outdated details to debunked claims like the MMR vaccine-autism link.

Social media amplifies the problem. Platforms enable two-way leaks from jury rooms. Jurors might innocently post updates or connect with outsiders, breaching confidentiality. Such actions contaminate verdicts and expose participants to risks, Judge Sweeney said. He questioned if courts should routinely check prospective jurors’ profiles on sites like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn during voir dire.

U.S. District Judge David J. Waxse of Kansas and former U.S. Magistrate Judge Ron Hedges joined the panel. They agreed that juror instructions alone fail against ingrained habits. Jurors bring life experiences to deliberations—that’s expected. But specific case research crosses a line, especially in familiar venues where local knowledge tempts lookups.

Panelists debated privacy trade-offs. Should judges or lawyers view social media in open court? What of dating sites or ‘guilt by association’ from broad networks? A juror linked to an old classmate with extreme views might face scrutiny. Judge Sweeney mused on penalties like mistrials for dishonesty revealed online.

Examples abound. Naive posts breach secrecy; others signal prejudice, from overt bias like ‘all cops lie’ to subtle leanings buried in feeds. Once private diary entries or phone chats now live permanently online. Text messages, easily retrieved, outlast ephemeral talks.

The judges stressed courts must adapt without isolating jurors entirely. Disconnecting them from family or jobs proves impractical. Solutions might include stricter oaths, tech monitoring or pre-trial social media disclosures. They called for balancing constitutional fair-trial rights against personal privacy.

This push comes as wireless adoption surges. Smartphones make research instinctive, like breathing, Judge Sweeney said. Unchallenged online data—even from reputable sources—carries errors that could spark miscarriages of justice. In court, such info faces cross-examination; outside, it poisons unchecked.

No easy fixes emerged. The panel framed an evolving clash: technology’s public permanence versus trial confidentiality. Courts, they argued, must evolve to preserve jury integrity amid colliding worlds of connectivity and justice.