Unless hiding under a rock, every attorney has heard the speakers and read the articles on the necessity of using social media in their legal practice. Social media, be it Twitter, Facebook, etc… has been touted as the ‘next big thing’ in marketing and it is obvious why it is something the legal profession needs to quickly embrace. However, the downsides of social media in the legal environment are not as apparent; that’s starting to change. As we initially saw with pediatrician Robert P. Lindeman, blogging during the defense of your medical malpractice trial is not the best idea. But now we are seeing jurors getting on board the in-trial social media bandwagon.

Lately there have been a growing number of stories of jurors doing in-trial internet research into the parties of a case, the attorneys and the witnesses. Now we are seeing jurors providing play-by-play information through Twitter and defendants texting witnesses during trial.

As reported in the Portland Business Journal, Judge Youlee Yim You in Multnomah County Circuit Court has run into these problems since taking the bench. During her first trial, a case involving a domestic violence issue, she discovered that the accused defendant was texting the victim during the trial while she was on another floor waiting to testify.

In two other cases in Arkansas and Pennsylvania, mistrials are occurring as a result of jurors announcing the results of jury deliberations prior to returning to the court room. As one tweeting juror put it, “I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else’s money.”

Obviously, such behavior can be detrimental to our judicial system but the question is how to stop it? Some jurisdictions have gone as far as banning the use of all cell phones and computers from the courtroom. In the United States District Court of Eastern District of Kentucky, cell phones must be left at the door when entering the courthouse except by explicit permission granted from the presiding judge. Such draconian measures seem outrageous, however the question remains as to what other options are there?

One option is already being explored in Britain: cellphone signal blockers. These devices, currently illegal in the United States, are used in public places where cellphones ringing are a major annoyance, such as theaters, as well as where security is an issue (to prevent remote detonation of explosive devices through cellular phones). While this would obviously prevent issues of twittering jurors and defendant’s threatening witnesses, this would also prevent lawyers from receiving phone calls while within the radius of the cellphone blocker (a true ‘cone of silence’). Perhaps it is a necessary evil, but perhaps we just need to get back to a time where individuals respected the judicial system and understood the ramifications of their actions. Unfortunately, technology has become another magnifying glass to the degradation of our collective society, with this being just the latest sign of the times.