Juror Number One v. Superior Court
206 Cal. App. 4th 854
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Juror Number One posted about the trial on Facebook during proceedings, violating the court’s admonitions.
- A posttrial hearing found misconduct by Juror Number One; the court ordered consent to release his Facebook postings for in camera review.
- Facebook and Juror Number One moved to quash subpoenas; the court trimmed the subpoena scope but ordered production of posts for in camera review.
- Petition for writ of prohibition was filed; California Supreme Court stayed and then remanded for consideration.
- The court concluded SCA does not bar the in camera review and balancing privacy against a fair trial justified the order.
- Concurrence emphasizes potential coercion in obtaining consent and argues prejudice should be assessed with access to deleted posts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the SCA applies to compel disclosure of Facebook posts | Royster argues SCA protects Facebook data from third-party disclosure | Juror Number One argues SCA protects his postings from court access | SCA does not bar court-ordered in camera review; consent mechanism not required against the court’s authority |
| Whether the trial court had authority to order production of posts post-misconduct findings | Real parties argue court has inherent power to ensure fair trial | Juror argues no further inquiry after testimony | Court can continue inquiry to determine prejudice; in camera review warranted |
| Whether compelled disclosure violates the Fourth/Fifth Amendments or juror privacy | Defense asserts privacy rights and self-incrimination concerns | Prosecution asserts need to assess prejudice and safeguard fair trial | Rights asserted were forfeited by lack of specific showing; privacy not controlling over fairness of trial |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hamilton, 20 Cal.4th 273 (Cal. 1999) (practical standard for prejudice in juror misconduct cases)
- People v. Hedgecock, 51 Cal.3d 395 (Cal. 1990) (courts may inquire into juror misconduct to protect the trial)
- Wilson, 44 Cal.4th 758 (Cal. 2008) (presumption of prejudice from juror misconduct; rebuttable)
- Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 717 F.Supp.2d 965 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (Facebook/MySpace as ECS/RCS; SCA scope on social networks)
- Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc., 172 Cal.App.4th 1125 (Cal. App. 2009) (distinguishes public posting from private postings for SCA)
- Flagg v. City of Detroit, 252 F.R.D. 346 (E.D. Mich. 2008) (court may compel production via consent-like mechanisms; control of documents)
- O’Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal.App.4th 1423 (Cal. App. 2006) (discovery obligations and production considerations)