Web of Intrigue

Listen to this article

Blogs, jots and twitters sound like potential problems associated with an automobile.

All three words refer to different on-line outlets for people to chide, praise or whine about any imaginable topic.

For attorneys, they can be either a dangerous vacuum of time, or a valuable resource for case research according to lawyers Dean A. Strang and Anne W. Reed.

The two spoke at the 2007 Wisconsin State Public Defenders Conference on the need for attorneys and judges to familiarize themselves with forms of new media, especially when it comes to jury selection.

“I don’t think we’re thinking about the new media or the points of access to information,” said Strang of Hurley, Burish & Stanton SC, in Madison. “Knowing where to look and how to find information on-line can potentially give you more information about a juror than you would ever get out of the voir dire process.”

A Question Worth Asking

Not every attorney is Web savvy, so the recommended method of determining if and what a prospective juror is involved in on-line, is to simply ask.

Reed noted that a recent jury screening in Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Richard J. Sankovitz’s court included a question pertaining to on-line activity.

“The questionnaire asked, ‘do you blog?’ and one of the people answered yes,” said Reed, who maintains a legal blog called Deliberations.

Not only did the potential juror admit to blogging, said Reed, but he had posted from within the courtroom about how tedious the process of jury selection was.

In some cases, potential jurors may be affiliated with far more complex sites and postings, which could shape his or her ideology if called to a case.

“If you ask a person, ‘How would I find you and statements you’ve made on-line?’ that open-ended question lets them talk about themselves,” said Strang. “The minute they start telling you what interest groups they are in or what chat rooms they visit, you are learning pretty valuable information about their interests and their attitudes.”

“That is stuff that’s not likely to be teased out by asking them what bumper sticker is on their car,” continued Strang.

Click here to subscribe to Wisconsin Law Journal today

Tangled in the Web

In addition to questioning jury pools about their Internet associations, attorneys can also keep pace with relevant on-line commentary relating to their cases.

Strang suggested that when defending a high-profile case, as he did with Steven Avery, gauging outside opinion can be potentially constructive.

“It’s one tool that is useful for those of us who can’t afford a real mock jury or a survey or a poll, which are good at getting an opinion base from a large group of people,” said Strang.

At the same time, differentiating between the credible and the cranks is essential.

“You’ve got to always remember that I’m hearing a minority that has selected itself as participating in this kind of information exchange and it may be a fairly homogenous group,” said Strang.

Another danger, according to Reed, is investing too much time in on-line research of jurors or case-related postings.

She stopped short of calling the process addictive, but warned that it should not interfere with pre-trial preparations. She noted that people could really be drawn in by the content and the process.

“You can forget that this is only really still a slice of a larger group of possible jurors out there,” said Reed. “As you follow it from comment to blog to comment to news story, you can take forever and forget to outline your opening.”

“Attorneys need to find a way to make it manageable,” continued Reed.