Earlier this month in San Francisco, the Superior Court issued a proposed rule that would
require potential jurors be given a reminder not to blog, tweet or conduct Internet research about cases.
If someone complained about the judge's conduct to a judicial ethics body in Texas, the judge would very likely receive a private reprimand or maybe if the ethics panel was particularly incensed, a public reprimand, but only because he lost his cool on the bench, not because
he required the potential juror to stick around until another suitable case could be found.
Not exact matches
While acknowledging the lack of a Supreme Court rule on the extent to which a party is
required to research a
potential or actual
juror, the court stated:
Many jury summonses allow
potential jurors to exclude themselves if they have transportation challenges, or if they would suffer a financial hardship if
required to serve (few employers in lower - income communities will pay an employee who doesn't show up for work due to jury duty), or if they are physically disabled.
Even when judges do permit attorneys to use social media to research
potential jurors, more than half said they
require disclosure the court or opposing counsel.