07.02.2014 Views

MLJ Volume 36-1.pdf - Robson Hall Faculty of Law

MLJ Volume 36-1.pdf - Robson Hall Faculty of Law

MLJ Volume 36-1.pdf - Robson Hall Faculty of Law

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Social Incrimination 257<br />

by judge alone based solely on fears <strong>of</strong> jury prejudice because <strong>of</strong> the<br />

proliferation <strong>of</strong> online discussion. Even though there were a number <strong>of</strong><br />

Facebook groups and online forums set up to discuss the alleged murder,<br />

the judge found that the presence <strong>of</strong> social networking groups “[did] not<br />

show a general prejudicial attitude in the community as a whole so as to<br />

justify a change in venue.” 161 However, the judge did recognize that it was<br />

a potential issue to address during the jury selection process. 162<br />

Additionally, there have been cases where jurors have been caught<br />

abusing social networks. Whether the breach is serious depends on the<br />

circumstance. A West Virginia police <strong>of</strong>ficer accused <strong>of</strong> financial<br />

improprieties had his conviction overturned when it became known that a<br />

juror had added him as a friend. 163 A civil trial verdict was overturned<br />

when it was discovered that the head juror’s Facebook account mentioned<br />

that he was a relative <strong>of</strong> a former employee <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong> the parties. 164<br />

However, in People v Rios, a judge refused to order a mistrial based solely<br />

on a juror sending a friend request to a witness, particularly since the<br />

witness did not accept the request. 165 Another court rejected an appeal <strong>of</strong> a<br />

murder conviction which was based on a juror mentioning online that<br />

they had been selected for jury duty without discussing the case. 166<br />

V. CIVIL PROCEEDINGS<br />

The focus in civil proceedings is on understanding the consequence <strong>of</strong><br />

relationships between individuals or entities, rather than expressly proving<br />

wrongdoing. Courts <strong>of</strong>ten have to resolve conflicts regarding what<br />

information should be disclosed and what should remain private. Once<br />

both sides have the evidence, the court then determines whether an injury<br />

occurred and what the appropriate damages should be. Consequently, in<br />

civil trials, issues regarding social networking evidence usually involve<br />

determining relevancy and discoverability.<br />

161<br />

Ibid at para 31.<br />

162<br />

Ibid at para 28.<br />

163<br />

State v Dellinger, 225 WVa 7<strong>36</strong>, 696 SE (2d) 38, 2010 WL 2243511 (W Va).<br />

164<br />

AG Equipment Co v AIG Life, 2011 WL 888266 (N DA).<br />

165<br />

People v Rios, 26 Misc (3d) 1225(A) (NY Sup 2010).<br />

166<br />

State v White, 2011-Ohio-2<strong>36</strong>4, 2011 WL 1988324 (Ohio App. 10 Dist 2011).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!