Despite jury instructions designed to prevent jurors from commenting upon the trial, their deliberations or the process by which they reached a verdict, some have ignored these instructions and face the risk of prosecution under s8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. In the past few years following an explosion in the use of blogging, microblogging via mobile technologies (i.e. Twitter) and social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace, there have been reports of juror impropriety and this has led to concerns being raised by many, including the Lord Chief Justice. This paper sets out to review a snap-shot study of Twitter, a widely-used microblogging tool that can be updated easily from a mobile phone and read widely by anyone with an Internet connection, even without being an account holder. The use of twitter, in particular by celebrities, has also become synonymous with updating the world at large on every single thought and movement of the account holder to the point of information overload. This study has limited validity, but aims to review whether jurors do indeed tweet about anything relating to their experience of jury service.

1. page Michael Bromby, Reader in Law

2. So, what’s with Twitter? page Microblogging tool that has been around for approx 24 months:

3. Concerns Regarding Internet / Technology page

4. Concerns Regarding Internet / Technology page

5. Concerns Regarding Internet / Technology page

6. Snapshot Study page Total number of twitter accounts: 12 million in US Tweets per day: ?? Tweets per person: ??

7. Snapshot Study page Total number of twitter accounts: 12 million in US Tweets per day: ?? Tweets per person: ?? 24hr period: 00:00-23:59 on Monday 1 March 2010 Search Terms: “jury duty” = 260 “jury service” = 26 Accounts chosen: 10 at random (5 from each) Followed: 1 week

8. “ Jury Duty” page Search Term “jury duty”: 260 Accounts: 234 Multiple mentions: x2 15 x3 3 x6 1

9. “ Jury Duty” page Subject Not rel: x7 News x1 17 Scam x6 (7%) Survey x3 Re-tweet x16 50 Others x34 (19%) Past x3 193 Personal x190 (74%)

10. “ Jury Service” page Search Term “jury service”: 26 Accounts: 20 Multiple mentions: x3 1 x5 1

11. “ Jury Service” page Subject Not rel: x1 (4%) Re-tweet x3 4 Others x1 (15%) Personal x21 (81%)

12. Relevant Tweets page Twitter account names removed

13. Twit # 1 page A female from the midlands area of UK Following 95 people 23 followers Website linked to aYouTube channel Aged 23 52 tweets during the observation period 372 historical tweets since June 2009

14. Twit # 2 page Male located in Florida Following 49 people 6 followers Only 33 historical tweets since April 2008 Removed the following day

15. Twit # 3 page Male located in London University student Following 112 people 494 followers 10,066 historical tweets Day 1 (107 tweets) The first 4 jury-related tweets stated that he was running late and a further 10 indicated boredom, the location of the court and that he had not been selected for a jury that day

16. Twit # 3 page Day 2 14 tweets before 10:00am 7 more until: Gap between 10:27 and 10:41 6 before 11:00am 8 more until: Gap between 11:47am and 12:18pm 9 tweets until 12:39pm 1 tweet at 1:33pm Gap between 1:38pm and 4:03pm

17. Twit # 3 page Day 5 “ JURY SERVICE IS DONE BK 2 UNI ON MONDAY” “ what was the outcome of the case? Can you say...” “ Yep Gulity On Majority Of 10:2”

18. Twit # 3 page Total: 1,416 tweets Average: 202 per day Jury-related: 26 None gave any information other than: lateness boredom expenses the court location!

19. Summary page From the 10 accounts: 2 were mid-trial 7 were attending for selection From the 7 attending: 2 were not selected 2 finished within the week (3 or 5 days) 1 entered a 4 week trial 3 trials completed: 2 gave verdict information

20. Conclusions page Responsible twits However: Active tweeting from court buildings Details of location Overall verdicts given Temptation: Go further? Say more? Private messages? Online information and access...