The New York Times provides a good rundown on just how pervasive social media is, both in the criminal law and civil litigation context.
There are a couple interesting points raised. Lori Andrews, a social media expert and professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law sees the prevalence of social media as a "novel threat to the right to a fair trial." In her view, many judges are "willing to admit anything from social media, without scrutinizing it closely" for authenticity, reliability and relevancy.
I've discussed how an expert isn't a foregone necessity in authenticating social media evidence, but I find the good professor's position to be somewhat alarmist. If defendants did not have attorneys fully capable of attacking the authenticity or reliability of a piece of social media evidence, then perhaps Facebook could pose a threat to the 5th Amendment. For whatever reason, as the article points out, criminals seem to enjoy publicizing their exploits on social media. The Constitution is there, in part, to protect the right to a fair trial, not protect a criminal from his own lack of judgment.
The article also explores the phenomena of potential jurors posting about defendants and trials while sitting in the jury box. Apparently, a Washington man posted "OMG! jdg picked me 2 decide doods f8! Looks gil-t from here ;-)." This brings to mind the old lawyer joke that a jury is comprised of 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.
I've discussed how an expert isn't a foregone necessity in authenticating social media evidence, but I find the good professor's position to be somewhat alarmist. If defendants did not have attorneys fully capable of attacking the authenticity or reliability of a piece of social media evidence, then perhaps Facebook could pose a threat to the 5th Amendment. For whatever reason, as the article points out, criminals seem to enjoy publicizing their exploits on social media. The Constitution is there, in part, to protect the right to a fair trial, not protect a criminal from his own lack of judgment.
The article also explores the phenomena of potential jurors posting about defendants and trials while sitting in the jury box. Apparently, a Washington man posted "OMG! jdg picked me 2 decide doods f8! Looks gil-t from here ;-)." This brings to mind the old lawyer joke that a jury is comprised of 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.
No comments:
Post a Comment