Only Amish Jurors Need Apply…

I’ve been fortunate enough to have avoided the dreaded jury duty so far in my life (knock wood), yet I have gathered enough knowledge from my extensive viewings of “Law and Order” to know that potential jurors that have not been “tainted” by media coverage of the trial are preferred.

How is that even possible in the New Media era?

Medical blogger Kevin M.D. posted an article today about a West Virginia malpractice lawsuit, in which videotaped witness depositions were posted on YouTube (!), along with surveillance video that contradicts each witness’ claims of injury (!!!). For example, a man claiming he’d lost his ability to grip due to malpractice was juxtaposed with footage of himself carrying items to his car without a problem.

The judge in the case ordered both sides to stop releasing information, as he felt it was a direct attempt to sway the public and potentially taint the jury pool before the trial. I’ll say. Just the printed descriptions of the “response videos” had me feeling skeptical of the claims. Lucky for them, I’m not likely to be called to West Virginia for jury duty.

With the ways in which we consume media constantly expanding, how will it be possible for courtroom proceedings to go on without things like this getting out? A few months ago, in another malpractice case (oddly enough) a doctor pulled a Rahodeb, posting insulting comments about the jury and the plaintiffs to his blog. Now, video depositions on YouTube.

What’s next, live-blogging from jury negotiations?