Introduction
Juror Number One made Facebook posts about his participation in a trial when it was still on. Juror Number Five informed the court of Juror Number One’s actions. The court stated that Juror Number One’s activity was misconduct and a violation of the established rules. The court’s subpoenas issued to Facebook and Juror Number One, ordering them to disclose the latter’s posts, were quashed. Eventually, the court ordered Juror Number One to participate in the camera review of his Facebook activities at the court. Juror Number One petitioned for a writ of prohibition, which was denied by the Court of Appeal and later put on review by the Supreme Court.
Procedural History
The case concerns Juror Number One, who engaged in making Facebook posts about a criminal trial in which he participated as a juror while it was still in progress. According to the court, such activity violated the admonition issued by the court. Once the court convicted the defendants for violent crimes, it indicated that Juror Number One engaged in clear misconduct. The court subpoenaed Facebook to provide postings of Juror Number One over the period during which the trial lasted. Facebook quashed the subpoena, citing the Stored Communications Act (SCA). Next, the court subpoenaed Juror Number One to produce all of his Facebook communication created during the time of the trial, yet he quashed the subpoena. The court later ordered Juror Number One to be present at the court for an in-camera review of all of his Facebook postings made during the trial. Yet, the California Supreme Court granted a temporary stay of the respondent court’s order.
Issue
Juror Number One’s ultimate position is that the court engaged in compelled disclosure which violated his rights. Specifically, Juror Number One states that the court acted against the provisions outlined in the SCA. Additionally, the court did not adhere to the Fourth Amendment when requiring Juror Number One to disclose their Facebook communication. Finally, according to Juror Number One, the court violated his privacy rights. The court believes that Juror Number One violated the instructions to the jury by making Facebook posts. As a result, it needs to ensure that Juror Number One did not use his posts to gain information not presented at the trial, which could make him prejudiced towards the defendants.
Rule(s)
There are several rules which are involved in the case. The main rule is the Stored Communications Act, a document that regulates the voluntary and compelled disclosure of stored wire and electronic communications and other types of information. Another rule mentioned as part of the case is the Fourth Amendment which Juror Number One believes to be violated by the court.
Application
The Stored Communications Act is the primary rule of law that caused the issue at hand. According to the SCA, the third party, Facebook, in the current case, is prohibited from disclosing the communication of the posting party. Yet, after asking Facebook to provide the communication, the court issued a similar subpoena to Juror Number One. As a result, the SCA cannot be applied to the situation when Juror Number One is ordered to disclose their communication by the court. Additionally, Juror Number One refers to the Fourth Amendment and states that the court violates his privacy rights. Yet, in the case in question, Juror Number One’s privacy interferes with the defendant’s right to a fair trial and thus establishes the grounds for further discussion.
Conclusion
The outcome of the trial was that the Court of Appeal ruled that the existing laws did not prevent the trial court from compelling the juror from disclosing their Facebook communication.