Popular Culture Review Volume 31, Number 2, Summer 2020 | Page 22

Twitter in the Courtroom : Do You Object ?
his victim ’ s computer . 45 A jury consultant commented on this incident by stating , “[ If ] a burglar can ’ t resist checking his Facebook status while in the high-adrenaline process of burglarizing your home ... what ’ s to stop a juror or witness during courtroom tedium ?” 46
A fundamental argument against reporters ’ use of Twitter in the courtroom identifies the disruption it could cause to the daily proceedings . This argument is similar to the one used against the use of cameras in the courtroom , “ Cameras cause physical and psychological disruptions in the courtroom that jeopardize the fair administration of justice .” 47 “ Many judges view electronic devices as the same type of threat . Their goal in banning these items mirrors those held with camera bans ; preventing members of the press from interfering with the business of the court and with the right to a fair trial .” 48 It could be distracting for jurors and other trial participants to view individuals in the courtroom using their cell phone or other electronic device . Jurors might be preoccupied with reporters pecking away at their phones or laptop computers , rather than with the testimony at hand . For this reason , the Illinois state court judge presiding over the 2012 trial of William Balfour , the defendant accused and later convicted of killing singer-actress Jennifer Hudson ’ s family members , told reporters they could not tweet or post on Facebook from inside the courtroom . 49 “[ A ] ccording to a court spokesman , the judge ‘ didn ’ t want constant typing
45 Id . 46 Winnick , supra , at 348 . 47 Packer at 578 . 48 United States v . Cicilline , 571 F . Supp . 359 , 361-62 ( D . R . I . 1983 ).
49 Michael Tarm , Jennifer Hudson Family Murders : Jury Selection to Begin , Huffington Post , Apr . 5 , 2012 , http :// www . huffingtonpost . com / 2012 / 04 / 06 / jennifer-hudson-family-mu _ n _ 1405442 . html .
13