Michael J. Sacopulos, Esq.
Last month, a trial was conducted in Queens, NY. The facts of the case are not particularly unique and it was the type of trial that could be conducted in most courtrooms across our country on any given day. The judge instructed the jurors before the start of the civil trial not to research the case on the Internet. The judge specifically mentioned sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Google should not be used.
While studying on-line juror misconduct, University of Texas law professor, John Clark, came across blog postings by the jury foreman of the this trial. The blog postings expressed displeasure with the jury system and questioning by counsel of certain witnesses. Professor Clark reported the jury foreman’s blog entries to the Court. It is important to note that all of these activities were taking place during the trial.
The jury foreman countered with the argument that he had not discussed the facts of the case but was simply commenting upon things that annoyed him about the judicial process. This is yet another example of the importance of guarding one’s on-line reputation and the legal system’s difficulty in adapting the implications of the social media. Repeatedly, I have learned of cases where jurors have gone on-line during a trial. Some criminal convictions have been overturned because jurors have independently researched a defendant on-line. Defense counsel may work for months and incur vast expense to prepare a case for presentation to a jury. Unfortunately, little to no thought is given as to what a juror might find out about the defendant on-line. It is a brave new world. A wise defendant in litigation will take every effort to protect his or her on-line reputation.
Michael Sacopulos is General Counsel of Medical Justice and a partner in Sacopulos Johnson & Sacopulos, Attorneys at Law
Not yet mentioned: The TRUTH/INTEGRITY of what is to be found online is questionable, unconfirmed.
So is testimony at trial!
Is there a typographical error in the article? See page 137, bottom last column, first sentence: Shouldn’t this be “the interaction is a curbside consult that does NOT create…? ”
As long as all of these criteria are met, the interaction is a curbside consult that does create any actual liability for the consultant. Of course, even in the absence of actual liability, there is always a possibility that the consulted physician will be sued for medical malpractice. Although such a physician should ultimately prevail as a matter of law, the entire process is best avoided. It is therefore appropriate to examine the means by which a curbside consultant can minimize his or her risk for being sued (albeit that the lawsuit would be without merit).
Perhaps, but at least then you get to see the person’s face and hear their voice. Online “facts” are pure hearsay, but since it’s in print, people accept it all too often. Right along with Internet Defamation, isn’t it?