I. WELCOME BACK
THANKS TO THOSE OF YOU WHO ATTENDED OUR EARLIER SESSION ON “DEALING WITH CASES WITH HIGH MEDIA INTEREST” AND WELCOME TO THOSE WHO HAVE JOINED US FOR “JURORS AND SOCIAL MEDIA”.
II. OBJECTIVES
OUR OBJECTIVES IN THIS SESSION ARE TO:
- DEFINE AND DISCUSS MATTERS INVOLVING JURORS AND SOCIAL MEDIA;
- SUGGEST METHODS OF HELPING JURORS DO THEIR DUTY IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA; AND
- ACKNOWLEDGE THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT’S DIRECTIVES FOR JUDGES TO HELP ENSURE SOCIAL MEDIA DO NOT INFLUENCE THE OUTCOMES OF JURY TRIALS.
III. PROCEDURE
A. LECTURE
WE HAVE 50 MINUTES TOGETHER FOR THESE OBJECTIVES. MY PLAN IS TO SET FORTH THE CURRENT STATE OF OKLAHOMA’S PROTECTIONS OF THE FIRST AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS AS GUARANTEED BY BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTIONS.
B. DISCUSSION
THEREAFTER, JUDGE THAD BALKMAN WILL SHARE HIS EXPERIENCES WITH TODAY’S SUBJECTS. THEN, I WILL ENCOURAGE YOU TO DISCUSS AT YOUR TABLES ANY ISSUES EACH OF YOU HAVE ENCOUNTERED IN YOUR COURT CONCERNING OUR FIRST TOPIC, “HIGH PROFILE MEDIA CASES” AND THIS SESSION’S TOPIC, “JURORS AND SOCIAL MEDIA”. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT WE SHOULD HAVE APPROXIMATELY 20 MINUTES FOR YOUR TABLE DISCUSSIONS.
SHOULD YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME, I WILL BE AVAILABLE DURING AND RIGHT AFTER OUR TIME TOGETHER. ALSO, MY WEBSITE IS IN YOUR MATERIALS AS ARE MY EMAIL, TELEPHONE NUMBER AND ADDRESS. I WOULD BE HONORED TO DISCUSS ANY QUESTIONS EACH OF YOU MAY WISH ME TO ADDRESS.
I SUGGEST THAT ONE OF THE MOST FRUITFUL AREAS OF TABLE DISCUSSION IS THE DIFFERING APPROACHES JUDGES IN RURAL AND URBAN AREAS MAY NEED TO TAKE IN DEALING WITH MEDIA AS RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN JUDGES AND REPORTERS CAN VARY WIDELY BASED ON POPULATION AND GEOGRAPHY.
HOWEVER, WHAT MUST REMAIN CONSTANT IS THE JUDICIARY’S DUTY TO ENSURE FAIR TRIALS AND THE MEDIA’S DUTY TO ENSURE THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT THEIR LEGAL SYSTEM.
IV. THERE IS NO ENEMY
THOSE OF YOU WHO REMEMBER THE COMIC STRIP, POGO BY WALT KELLY, WILL RECALL THE FAMOUS APHORISM FROM THE VIETNAM WAR ERA:
“WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US.”
OR PERHAPS YOU HAVE HEARD THE MEDIA DESCRIBED AS,
“THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE”.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE FIRST AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS. NEITHER THE JUDICIARY (US) OR THE MEDIA SHOULD BE SEEN BY EITHER AS AN ENEMY. THANKS TO THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION AND THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT’S POSITION OKLAHOMA’S JUDICIARY IS THE PROTECTOR OF BOTH AMENDMENTS. OKLAHOMA HAS ZEALOUSLY GUARDED OUR CITIZENS’ RIGHTS TO BOTH FREE SPEECH AND A FAIR TRIAL. AS STATED IN INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT BY THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE’S FELIX STUMPF:
“THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT HAS LONG EXERCISED ITS INHERENT POWERS WITH MUCH VIGOR.”
SEE P. 162 AND PUCKETT V. COOK, 586 P.2D 721 (OKLA. 1977)
THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT HAS ADOPTED A REASONABLE POSITION ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND A FAIR TRIAL IN ITS TRIAL RULE 28 THAT FIRMLY PLACES THE TRIAL JUDGE IN CONTROL OF MEDIA ISSUES IN TRIAL. SO, HOW SHOULD THE OKLAHOMA TRIAL JUDGE EXERCISE THAT CONTROL IN JURY TRIALS?
V. THE JURY AND SOCIAL MEDIA
JUST RECENTLY, A 13-YEAR-OLD BOY CAPTURED A PHOTOGRAPH OF A YOUNG GIRL AND USED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO REMOVE HER CLOTHING AND MAKE HER NORMAL IMAGE PORNOGRAPHIC. THEN HE PUT HIS MODIFIED, FALSE DEPICTION ON THE INTERNET AND CAUSED THE GIRL GREAT EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
IN JUNE 2025, SOME PERSON OR PERSONS USED AI TO IMPERSONATE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO AND SENT FALSE MESSAGES TO SEVERAL FOREIGN OFFICIALS.
DURING THE SEAN DIDDY COMBS TRIAL ONE OF THE JURORS MAY HAVE ACCESSED INTERNET INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRIAL.
CAN AMERICANS RELY UPON THEIR GOVERNMENT THROUGH ITS LEGAL SYSTEM TO AFFORD THEM FAIR TRIALS WHEN FALSE OR INADMISSIBLE, UNVETTED INFORMATION IS READILY AVAILABLE ON A SMART PHONE? THE ANSWER IS, YES! HOWEVER, TRIAL JUDGES MUST APPLY THE TOOLS THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT, CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES PROVIDE.
THERE ARE PROBABLY SEVERAL WAYS FOR JUDGES TO APPROACH THE RAPIDLY DEVELOPING DILEMMAS OF HOW JURY TRIALS ARE AFFECTED BY SOCIAL MEDIA. THREE MAJOR THEORIES ARE:
(1) THE OSTRICH METHOD: PRETEND IT DOES NOT EXIST. WELL, IT DOES, SO IGNORING IT WILL NOT SOLVE IT;
(2) THE LUDDITE SOLUTION WHERE THE LEGAL SYSTEM STRIKES BACK WITH DRACONIAN CONTROLS IN HOPES JURORS WILL BE FRIGHTENED BACK TO PRE-INTERNET BEHAVIOR. WORKERS OF THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY TRIED TO HALT MECHANIZATION IN AN EFFORT TO SAVE THEIR JOBS. THE LUDDITES WHO REFUSED TO ADAPT TO THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION WERE SWEPT INTO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY; OR,
(3) ADAPT TO THE INEVITABLE CHANGE IN BOTH TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY.
OKLAHOMA TRIAL JUDGES ALREADY HAVE THE EDUCATION, TRAINING AND LEGAL TOOLS TO USE THE ONLY RATIONAL APPROACH TO THE IRREVERSIBLE MOMENTUM OF THE INTERNET. WE SHOULD CALL UPON THE LESSONS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF HISTORY AND OUR FAITH IN OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM. JURORS, JUDGES, THE MEDIA AND BOTH REAL AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CAN OPERATE A FAIR AND EFFICIENT LEGAL SYSTEM USING TIME-TESTED RULES OF DUE PROCESS APPLIED WITH DILIGENCE AND GOODWILL.
TECHNOLOGY MAY CHANGE BUT HUMAN NATURE HAS BEEN FORMED OVER A FEW MILLION YEARS OF HOMINOID FITS AND STARTS AND TWO OR THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS OF HOMO SAPIENS EXPERIENCE AND PROGRESS. AND OVER ABOUT THE PAST 250 YEARS WE HAVE GONE FROM GAZING AT THE HEAVENS TO VISITING THEM. PLUS, OVER THE PAST 100 YEARS WE HAVE GONE FROM CURING POLIO AND SMALL POX TO CREATING ARTIFICIAL LIMBS. SCIENCE HAS BEEN GOOD TO US EVEN IF WE TAKE PAUSE AT THE LEVELS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION IT HAS ENABLED. WE JUST NEED TO KEEP PROGRESSING BEFORE WE EXTERMINATE OURSELVES AND AI MIGHT BE A HUGE BOOST IN THAT REGARD.
SO, HOW DOES THE LEGAL SYSTEM DEAL WITH SOCIAL MEDIA AND JURORS? BY REMAINING TRUE TO OUR TIME-TESTED PRINCIPLES AND HAVING CONFIDENCE OUR CITIZENS WHO ARE CALLED FOR JURY DUTY WILL ALSO. AS WE KNOW, PEOPLE USUALLY RESPOND POSITIVELY TO POSITIVE TREATMENT AND ETHICALLY TO EXPECTATIONS OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR. ARE THERE PLENTY OF BAD EXCEPTIONS, ABSOLUTELY. HOWEVER, JUDGES HAVE THE TOOLS TO WEED THOSE POTENTIAL JURORS OUT AND TO GUIDE AND ENCOURAGE SITTING JURORS TO ESCHEW EXTRANEOUS INFLUENCE FROM OUTSIDE FORCES.
IN THE END, JUDGES MUST ADHERE TO THEIR HONORED PRINCIPLES AND HAVE FAITH SO WILL JURORS. MOST JURORS WANT TO BE FAIR AND MOST LIKELY WILL BE IF JUDGES GIVE THEM PROPER GUIDANCE, SUCH AS THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS:
OUJI – CR 1-4
FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY
THE TRIAL JUDGE CAN INSTRUCT THE JURY AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF EACH DAY OF TRIAL –
“BOTH THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA AND THE DEFENDANT (OR BOTH PARTIES) ARE ENTITLED TO JURORS WHO APPROACH THIS CASE WITH OPEN MINDS AND AGREE TO KEEP THEIR MINDS OPEN UNTIL A VERDICT IS REACHED. JURORS MUST BE AS FREE AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE FROM BIAS, PREJUDICE OR, SYMPATHY. JURORS MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY PRECONCEIVED IDEAS AS TO FACTS OR AS TO LAW.
“… UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THIS TRIAL, DO NOT DISCUSS THIS CASE WITH ANY OTHER PERSON, INCLUDING FAMILY AND FRIENDS. YOU SHOULD NOT READ OR LISTEN TO ANY MEDIA DISCUSSING THIS CASE NOR RESEARCH THIS CASE IN ANY WAY, INCLUDING THROUGH THE INTERNET OR ANY OTHER TOOLS OF TECHNOLOGY. NOR SHOULD YOU USE ANY OF THESE MEANS TO COMMUNICATE TO OTHERS ABOUT THE CASE. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS CASE BE DECIDED SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE YOU RECEIVE IN THIS COURTROOM.”
ANOTHER ADVISABLE JURY INSTRUCTION IS ONE SUGGESTED BY THE STATE OF INDIANA’S TR 2.17 THAT SHOULD BE READ TO THE JURY AT THE BEGINNING OF VOIR DIRE PROCEDURE:
“THE COURT HAS AUTHORIZED SOME NEWS MEDIA TO BROADCAST THIS PROCEEDING. MEDIA IS RESTRICTED FROM BROADCASTING OR PHOTOGRAPHING MEMBERS OF THE JURY. BROADCASTING MAY INCLUDE THE USE OF STILL PHOTOGRAPHY, AUDIO RECORDING, VIDEO RECORDING, AND/OR LIVE STREAMING OF THE PROCEEDINGS. ONLY AUTHORIZED MEDIA PERSONNEL MAY BROADCAST THIS PROCEEDING.
“THE PRESENCE OF CAMERAS OR RECORDING EQUIPMENT DOES NOT MAKE THE CASE OR ANY WITNESS MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS. THE MEDIA IS ABLE TO CHOOSE WHICH PORTIONS OF A PROCEEDING TO ATTEND, AND FOR LEGAL REASONS, MAY NOT BE PERMITTED TO BROADCAST CERTAIN WITNESSES OR PORTIONS OF THE PROCEEDINGS. YOU ARE NOT TO CONSIDER THE PRESENCE OF THE MEDIA IN ANY WAY.”
THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER TOOLS THE OKLAHOMA TRIAL JUDGE HAS TO HELP ENSURE A FAIR TRIAL IN OUR QUICKLY CHANGING ELECTRONIC AGE. GARY A. HENGSTLER OF THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE IN HIS ARTICLE, THE MEDIA’S ROLE IN CHANGING THE FACE OF U.S. COURTS, STATES,
“THE PROBLEM ARISES WHEN POTENTIAL (OR SITTING) JURORS LEARN FROM THE MEDIA FACTS OR PURPORTED FACTS ABOUT THE CASE THAT ARE NOT PERMITTED TO BE INTRODUCED AT TRIAL”.
HENGSTLER SUGGESTS SEVERAL TECHNIQUES A TRIAL JUDGE CAN USE TO HELP ASSUAGE THESE PROBLEMS:
- A CHANGE OF VENUE;
- SEQUESTERING THE JURY; OR
- ISSUING GAG ORDERS.
AS TO JURY SEQUESTRATION, I KNOW YOU PROPERLY WISH TO AVOID IT. HOWEVER, IN DEATH PENALTY CASES OR OTHER HEINOUS ALLEGATIONS OR CASES WITH HIGH MEDIA INTEREST, SEQUESTRATION MIGHT BECOME A NECESSITY. I SEQUESTERED A JURY FOR TWO WEEKS.
MY SMALL, RURAL INDIANA COUNTY OF 25,000 RESIDENTS IS NEXT TO A COUNTY WITH 200,000 RESIDENTS AND AN AGGRESSIVE MEDIA. THERE WERE ONLY TWO NEWSPAPERS IN MY COUNTY AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL BUT NO OTHER RADIO OR T.V. STATIONS. BOTH PAPERS WERE OWNED AND OPERATED BY FRIENDS OF MINE. WE GOT ALONG WELL AND I EVEN PUBLISHED A WEEKLY OPINION COLUMN IN BOTH PAPERS. AS FOR THE LARGE MEDIA AUDIENCE, I HAD AN ARMS-LENGTH BUT CORDIAL STATUS. I WAS TREATED FAIRLY AND MY STAFF AND I DID OUR BEST TO ACCOMMODATE REASONAL MEDIA REQUESTS.
THE CASE AT HAND INVOLVED MULTIPLE MURDER CHARGES AND A POSSIBLE DEATH SENTENCE. MEDIA INTEREST WAS INTENSE AND INVASIVE. HOWEVER, SMART PHONES WERE THEN IN THEIR INFANCY AND GOOGLE AND WIKIPEDIA HAD NOT ARRIVED AS YET. BUT THE JURORS AND POTENTIAL JURORS WERE AT RISK FOR OUTSIDE INFLUENCE.
I SUMMONSED IN 100 POTENTIAL JURORS, SET UP A PROCEDURE FOR INDIVIDUAL VOIR DIRE AND RAN ALL MEDIA REQUESTS THROUGH MY HIGHLY COMPETENT BAILIFF WHO WAS A RETIRED ASSISTANT SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT WITH A PH.D. AND AN ABILITY TO TREAT PEOPLE PROPERLY. MY LEAD COURT REPORTER PROVIDED A DAILY TRIAL SCHEDULE TO ANYONE WHO REQUESTED IT.
IN THE SMALL TOWN WHERE MY COURT WAS LOCATED, WE HAD ONLY ONE MOTEL. FRIENDS OF MINE OWNED IT. I CALLED UPON THEIR SENSE OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND WE COMMANDEERED THE ENTIRE MOTEL FOR THE 12 JURORS AND TWO ALTERNATES. AT MY REQUEST, THE OWNERS CLOSED THEIR BUSINESS DURING THE TRIAL EXCEPT FOR 14 INDIVIDUAL ROOMS FROM WHICH THE TELEVISIONS AND TELEPHONES WERE REMOVED.
MY BAILIFF COORDINATED CATERED MEALS FOR MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY, WE WERE IN TRIAL 6 DAYS A WEEK FROM 9 AM UNTIL 5 PM. WE PROVIDED SUPERVISED FAMILY VISITATION ON SUNDAY WITH ARRANGEMENTS FOR VOLUNTARY CHURCH SERVICES AT THE MOTEL. OUR COUNTY HAD NO NON-CHRISTIAN ADHERENTS.
CELL PHONES WERE IMPOUNDED WITH THE JURORS ALLOWED SUPERVISED FAMILY PHONE CONTACT TWO TIMES PER DAY.
THE SCHOOL SYSTEM LOANED US A BUS AND DRIVER FOR TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM COURT AND THE COUNTY SHERIFF, THE SIXTH ONE I WORKED WITH DURING MY TENURE, PROVIDED EXTRA SECURITY.
THE MOTEL HAD LAUNDRY FACILITIES THAT WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE JURORS AND MY FAMILY PHYSICIAN VOLUNTEERED TO BE ON CALL. OF COURSE, HE WAS THE PHYSICIAN FOR MOST OF THE JURORS ANYWAY.
WE EVENTUALLY RECEIVED A GUILTY VERDICT AND I IMPOSED A DEATH SENTENCE THAT STOOD UP ON STATE APPEAL, BUT WAS CONVERTED TO LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE BY A FEDERAL JUDGE. THE COUNTY COUNCIL AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NEVER COMPLAINED ABOUT THE COST.
HOWEVER, AVOIDANCE WOULD HAVE CERTAINLY BEEN EASIER ON EVERYONE. BUT, UNDERSTANDABLY, THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY WAS NOT IN A PLEA BARGAIN MODE. THIS WAS A CASE THAT HAD TO BE TRIED.
MY 145-YEAR-OLD COURTHOUSE HAD A LARGE MAIN FLOOR SEATING AREA WHERE I STARTED VOIR DIRE BY HAVING ALL PROSPECTIVE JURORS SEATED IN A GROUP AND ADMINISTERED AN OATH. THEN I GAVE PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS THAT THE ATTORNEYS HAD ALREADY APPROVED IN A PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE.
NEXT, I HAD TWO MEMBERS OF MY STAFF, ONE FEMALE AND ONE MALE ESCORT THE ENTIRE PANEL TO OUR LARGE UPSTAIRS JURY ROOM. THEN I HAD MY BAILIFF BRING IN INDIVIDUAL JURORS FOR VOIR DIRE. WE SELECTED 12 REGULAR JURORS AND 2 ALTERNATES THAT FIRST DAY IN ABOUT 10 HOURS.
THEN MY BAILIFF AND TWO SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES ESCORTED THE BUS LOAD OF 14 JURORS TO EACH OF THEIR HOMES TO GET MEDICINES, TOILETRIES AND CLOTHES FOR 5 DAYS. THE JURORS WERE THEN TAKEN TO THE MOTEL FOR SUPPER AND INDIVIDUAL ROOM ASSIGNMENT. I REPEATED ADMONISHMENT TWICE EACH DAY ON THE RECORD.
I CAN ONLY SPECULATE AS TO HOW EFFECTIVE MY PROCEDURES WOULD BE IN TODAY’S SOCIAL MEDIA MARKET, BUT MY EXPREIENCE WITH ABOUT 200 JURY TRIALS IS THE JURORS DO THEIR BEST TO AFFORD A FAIR TRIAL.
YOU WILL SEE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT SEQUESTRATION IN YOUR HANDOUTS. PLEASE SHARE YOUR EXPERIENCES AND SUGGESTIONS DURING YOUR DISCUSSION TIME LATER.
VI. DO NOT BE A JERK
HARDLY ANY TRIAL JUDGE WILL EVER ENCOUNTER JURORS WHO INTENTIONALLY WANT TO BE UNFAIR. I HAVE TRIED 60 JURY TRIALS AS AN ATTORNEY AND OVER 100 AS A JUDGE. I HAVE NEVER HAD A MEDIA OR JUROR PROBLEM. MY GUESS IS NO JUDGE IN THIS AUDIENCE HAS EITHER. OUR GOALS SHOULD BE PREEMPTIVE NOT REMEDIAL. I HAVE HAD NUMEROUS PERSONAL FRIENDS WHO WERE OR ARE MEDIA PEOPLE. TO MY KNOWLEDGE NOT ONE OF THEM HAS EVER HAD A PROBLEM COVERING A TRIAL. DO PROBLEMS OCCUR? SURE. ARE THEY AS RARE AS NBA CHAMPIONSHIPS? YES!
THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION REMAINS OUR TALISMAN. THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT REMAINS OUR GUIDE. THOSE TWO ALONG WITH THE ADVICE FROM OUR PARENTS TO BE NICE AND DO THE RIGHT THING WILL BE THE TRIAL JUDGE’S FRIEND. THESE ELEMENTS ALONG WITH THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ABILITY TO CALL UPON THE ATTORNEYS PRE-TRIAL AND DURING TRIAL TO DEVISE AND DISCUSS PARTICULAR GUIDELINES FOR PARTICULAR CASES SHOULD PROVIDE A PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS. THE JUDGE SHOULD DO WHAT WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE EVEN AS TECHNOLOGY RUNS TOWARD THE STARS. ORDER BRIEFS FROM THE ATTORNEYS AND LET THEM AMAZE YOU WITH THEIR BRILLIANT SOLUTIONS THAT THEY AND THEIR CLIENTS AGREE TO IN ADVANCE AND ON THE RECORD.
VII. CONCLUSION
WHEN IT COMES TO OKLAHOMA TRIAL JUDGES DEALING WITH EITHER THE MEDIA IN HIGH PROFILE CASES OR WITH JURORS AND SOCIAL MEDIA, THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM HAVE NOT CHANGED EVEN THOUGH SCIENCE HAS SPED AHEAD. OKLAHOMA TRIAL JUDGES HAVE BEEN GIVEN ALL THE TOOLS AND LAW THEY NEED TO GUARANTEE BOTH THE FIRST AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS TO OUR CITIZENS. THE TRIAL JUDGE HAS THE DUTY AND THE AUTHORITY TO PLAN AND PRESIDE OVER A FAIR TRIAL, JUDGE OR JURY. SO, WHAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE?
PLEASE ALLOW ME TO SHARE WITH YOU WHAT I HAVE DISCOVERED FROM TEACHING JUDGES FROM MUCH OF THE UNITED STATES AND SEVERAL FOREIGN COUNTRIES OVER TOO MANY YEARS. I HAVE NOTICED THAT AMERICAN JUDGES AND FOREIGN JUDGES FROM PALESTINE, UKRAINE, RUSSIA AND THE COUNTRY OF GEORGIA DIFFER IN ONE MAJOR ASPECT THAT DIFFERENTIATES OUR LEGAL SYSTEM FROM THEIRS.
IN THOSE COUNTRIES JUDGES OFTEN BELIEVE THEY CANNOT INNOVATE OR ADAPT TO CHANGE WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION FROM THEIR EXECUTIVE OR LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES, EVEN IF THEY KNOW JUSTICE DEMANDS IT. BUT, AMERICAN JUDGES BELIEVE THEY SHOULD FIND A WAY TO DO THE RIGHT THING UNLESS SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDEN TO DO SO BY SOME APPLICABLE LAW. JUDGES CAN AND SHOULD BE BOLD IN FASHIONING SOLUTIONS TO OUR NEW PROBLEMS FROM NEW TECHNOLOGY. FOR, AS WE KNOW, THE LAW’S ABILITY TO RENDER JUSTICE DEPENDS ON OUR INTELLIGENCE, AND THAT IS NOT ARTIFICIAL.
IN OTHER WORDS, OKLAHOMA JUDGES CAN FACE A TRIAL WITH MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS OR SOCIAL MEDIA ISSUES IF THEY CAREFULLY PLAN AND DO THE RIGHT THING AND, THEY MAY DO SO WITH CONFIDENCE OKLAHOMA LAW WILL APPROVE THEIR ACTIONS.
PROGRESS CAN BE A HUGE BENEFIT TO US. WE MAY NOT NOW BE ABLE TO SEE THE BENEFITS, BUT WE SHOULD APPROACH THE FUTURE RELYING ON OUR LESSONS FROM THE PAST.
NOW, I WOULD LIKE FOR JUDGE THAD BALKMAN TO COME SHARE WITH US HIS EXPERIENCE WITH THESE ISSUES OF SOCIAL MEDIA, JURY TRIALS AND JUDICIAL DUTIES. THANK YOU JUDGE; PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THANK YOU JUDGE BALKMAN; THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL. NOW WOULD YOU ALL PLEASE TAKE SOME TIME TO DISCUSS WITH ONE ANOTHER AT YOUR TABLES THE ISSUES LISTED IN THE HANDOUTS UNTIL BREAK TIME. I REMAIN AVAILABLE SHOULD YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION THAT GOES ALONG WITH THIS SEMINAR:
SocialMedia_and_Jurors_Modified-2
Leave a Reply