MARK MELTZER is a specialist with the Administrative Office of the Courts, and
served as Wireless Committee staff. He is grateful for the assistance of Ashley Dammen
and Jennifer Greene in preparing this article.
person making the request is engaged in the
dissemination of news to a broad community”) to favor coverage that makes a court
proceeding available to the public. The revisions clarify the process and timeline for submitting a request. The current rule does not
mention victims, who may be neither parties
nor witnesses in a case; the revisions include
provisions for victims. The proposed rule
would allow a judge to approve the use of
multiple cameras, which might provide a
superior journalistic product without disrupting the proceeding. The revisions also
reorganize and restyle the rule. 8
Jury Admonitions
The Wireless Committee also considered
revisions to the jury admonition. Improper
use of new technology by a juror can result
in a mistrial and can cost the court and
litigants a substantial amount of time and
money. Appeals from a number of jury verdicts nationwide, including Arizona appeals,
have challenged juror misuse of technology. 9
As more jurors acquire new technology,
the number of these challenges grows.
Admonitions might be the most effective
way of preventing that misuse. A successful
admonition is one in which jurors understand not only the words used, but also the
rationale. 10
The Wireless Committee’s proposed
admonition updates the instruction to
address new technology and social media,
and provides jurors with a positive mes-
sage—that they share the
responsibility of assuring a fair
trial. 11 The Wireless Committee
acknowledges that it is unreal-
istic to believe that its proposed
admonition will prevent all
juror misconduct. After all, the
admonition applies not only
when jurors are in the court-
house, but also when they are
away from court, and the
temptations of technology and
society are pervasive. However,
if the language, tone and expla-
nations of the admonition give
jurors a better understanding
of their responsibilities, it is
more likely they will remember
and comply with the admoni-
tion in and outside the court-
house.
RAFAL OLECHO WSKI © SHU T TERS TOCK.COM
More InformatIon
The Wireless Committee’s written report is available
( http://tinyurl.com/WirelessReport) on the Arizona
Judicial Branch website. The report includes other recommendations concerning rules of procedure, jury instructions and other issues. The Wireless Committee’s rule
change petitions are available on the Court’s Rules Forum
webpage ( http://tinyurl.com/RulesForum), and it
welcomes your comments on those petitions.
Juror Oaths
The Wireless Committee pro-
poses that the juror oath
include the words “comply with the admo-
nition,” to emphasize to jurors the impor-
tance of following the admonition. 12 The
Wireless Committee also recommends
using the same oath, and nearly the same
admonition, for civil and criminal cases.
Because not every juror absorbs the admo-
nition by listening to it, the Wireless
Committee created a “smart juror” card to
reinforce the admonition. The card would
be thin and laminated like a playing card,
and roughly the size and shape of a smart
phone. While jurors receive a written
admonition on letter-sized paper in black-
and-white, the “smart juror” card’s use of
color, simple text and symbols may be more
effective. Jurors could carry the card in a
pocket or pocketbook, or use it as a book-
mark, as a tangible, friendly and ongoing
reminder of the admonition. AZ AT
endnotes
1. The price of the “brick”
phone, also known as the
Motorola Dyna TAC 8000X,
was $3,995 in 1983 dollars.
The phone could go eight
hours between charges, and it
allowed the user to have 30
minutes of conversation.
See www.retrobrick.com/
moto8000.html.
2. Michael DeGusta, Are Smart
Phones Spreading Faster than
Any Technology in Human
History? MIT TECH. REV,
May 9, 2012.
3. Henry Blodget, Actually, the
US Smartphone Revolution Has
Entered the Late Innings, BUS.
INSIDER, Sept. 13, 2012.
4. See the 2011 Data Report of
the Administrative Office of
the Courts, Statewide Case
Activity Summary.
5. Its full name is the
“Committee on the Impact of
Wireless Mobile Technologies
and Social Media on Court
Proceedings,” but its shortened, informal name is the
“Wireless Committee.”
6. For example, on Dec. 11,
2012, the chief judge of Cook
County, Ill., announced that
devices “capable of connecting
to the Internet or making
audio or video recordings”
would be banned at all of the
county’s criminal court facilities
beginning Jan. 14, 2013. A
news report cited the judge’s
increasing concern that gang
members were using technolo-
gy to influence court proceed-
ings, such as by taking photos
of witnesses, judges and jurors,
and by texting testimony of
witnesses to prospective witnesses
waiting outside the courtroom.
See Judge Bars Cellphones,
Electronics From Cook County
Criminal Courts, CHI. TRIB.,
Dec. 12, 2012.
