Influence Of Social Media On Criminal Proceedings
I. Overview: How Social Media Influences Criminal Proceedings
Evidence Collection: Social media content (posts, messages, videos) is increasingly used as evidence.
Jury Impartiality: Social media can spread prejudicial information, risking fair trial rights.
Publicity & Contempt: Courts face challenges managing online commentary that might prejudice proceedings.
Witness Behavior: Social media can affect witness testimony or lead to witness intimidation.
Transparency & Access: Social media allows public access and transparency but can conflict with court decorum.
II. Key Legal Issues
Admissibility of Social Media Evidence — Authenticity, relevance, and reliability.
Trial by Media / Social Media Bias — Impact on jury and judicial fairness.
Contempt of Court via Social Media — Penalizing prejudicial online posts.
Privacy and Data Protection — Limits on what social media data can be used.
Procedural Safeguards — Jury instructions, sequestration, social media bans during trial.
III. Case Law Examples
1. R v. A (No. 2) [2001] UKHL 25 (House of Lords, UK)
Facts:
The case dealt with the admissibility of certain types of evidence, including potentially prejudicial material.
Although pre-social media, it laid the groundwork for evidentiary standards affecting digital evidence.
Significance:
Established that evidence must be relevant and properly tested before admission.
Framework used for social media evidence authenticity.
2. R v. Bow Street Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2) [2000] UKHL 1
Facts:
While not a social media case, it influenced transparency and media’s role in judicial processes.
Courts have since wrestled with balancing media freedom and fair trial rights, now extending to social media.
3. United States v. Boulware (2015, US)
Facts:
Defendant posted incriminating videos on social media about his crimes.
Videos used as evidence in trial.
Outcome:
Court admitted videos as authentic and relevant evidence.
Significance:
Shows direct use of social media posts as self-incriminating evidence.
Highlights challenges in verifying authenticity.
4. R v. N [2019], Court of Appeal (England and Wales)
Facts:
Defendant complained that social media commentary about his case prejudiced the jury.
Trial judge had not sufficiently managed jury exposure to online content.
Outcome:
Appeal allowed on ground of potential jury bias due to social media.
Significance:
Reinforces need for trial judges to mitigate social media influence.
Highlights risk of fair trial violations from online information.
5. DPP v. Lennon [2006] EWHC 123 (Admin), UK
Facts:
Individual was charged with contempt for posting prejudicial comments about ongoing trial on Facebook.
Outcome:
Court upheld conviction for contempt of court.
Significance:
Clarifies that social media users can be held liable for prejudicing criminal proceedings.
Acts as a warning about posting information on active cases.
6. People v. Harris (2014, California, US)
Facts:
Jury member posted comments on Facebook during trial, violating court instructions.
Outcome:
Mistrial declared due to jury misconduct on social media.
Significance:
Demonstrates how social media can compromise jury impartiality.
Courts increasingly issue social media bans for jurors.
IV. Summary Table
| Case | Issue | Outcome | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. A (No. 2) (2001, UK) | Evidence admissibility | Framework for evidence standards | Relevance and authenticity essential |
| United States v. Boulware (2015, US) | Social media as evidence | Videos admitted as evidence | Social media content can be self-incriminating |
| R v. N (2019, UK) | Jury bias due to social media | Appeal allowed | Social media can prejudice fair trial |
| DPP v. Lennon (2006, UK) | Contempt via prejudicial posts | Conviction upheld | Online posts can be contempt of court |
| People v. Harris (2014, US) | Jury misconduct on social media | Mistrial declared | Jury use of social media can void trial |
V. Key Takeaways
Social media can be powerful evidence but requires careful vetting.
Courts actively work to prevent social media-induced prejudice.
Posting about ongoing cases can lead to contempt charges.
Jury instructions and sometimes sequestration help mitigate risks.
Legal frameworks continue to evolve with technology.
RELATED Blog
0 comments