The Jury Vetter’s Oath

Before every trial, each member of our team is required to affirm that they have read and agree to the following Jury Vetter’s Oath:

Thomas Jefferson said, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

In this context, a jury investigator considers the role of a juror, and therefore the juror himself, sacred. Jury vetting proceeds with profound respect for the juror and for the juror’s privacy. All information discovered about a juror is held in the strictest confidence, and will never be used in a way to embarrass, delay, or burden the juror or the proceeding.

The term “voir dire” is interpreted as “to speak the truth.” The purpose of voir dire is to discover the truth about a juror through what they reveal about themselves in court. Jurors also reveal the truth about themselves through public documents or public statements posted online, and the jury vetter’s role is to provide the trial attorney with public information that reveals the truth about a juror. The jury investigator is very specifically NOT interested in information that is not public record, and considers any attempt to obtain private information a violation against the juror.

The jury vetter recognizes the difference between “passive review” and “active review” of online data. “Passive review” involves looking at data available without making an access request. “Active review” involves making an access request or reviewing data available only to those who have access. A jury vetter only engages in “passive review,” and shall never engage in “active review.”

The jury vetter must not ever contact a juror, either directly or indirectly. Contact includes but is not limited to: sending messages; making friend requests; and commenting on, “liking,” or sharing juror’s posts.

The jury vetter must not request access to the account of a person associated with a juror for the purposes of gaining access to information that is not available through passive review.

Some social media platforms provide notification to users when their profiles are viewed — specifically of note, LinkedIn. ABA Formal Opinion 466 says that a system-generated notification is not considered a communication with a juror, but it does note that there has been previous debate about the subject. The jury investigator should make efforts to avoid triggering system-generated notifications that reveal their identity — either by configuring privacy settings to conceal the identity of the passive reviewer (as can be done in LinkedIn), or by making an effort to avoid platforms that are known to provide system-generated notifications of passive review.

The jury investigator must be familiar with ABA Formal Opinion 466.

It is the responsibility of the jury vetter to know if there are any court orders, local rules, standing orders, or case management orders that limit or prohibit the jury investigator’s task of passive review of a juror’s public information, and jury investigators must follow any such rules or orders.