Trial by TikTok: Social Media’s Attack on Juror Impartiality

Blog Post | 113 KY. L. J. ONLINE | April 23, 2025

Trial by TikTok: Social Media’s Attack on Juror Impartiality

By: Preston Goodman, Staff Editor, Vol. 113 

The guarantee of an impartial jury — one “capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it,” is a fundamental touchstone of the American justice system.[1] With the rise of social media in the daily lives of Americans, this longstanding guarantee is under attack. Media influence on juries is no new phenomenon, however, what started as sensational newspaper articles on the highest-profile cases has evolved into algorithm-generated content on social media and an infinite stream of information at jurors' fingertips.[2]

In high-profile cases, like the defamation case involving Johnny Depp and Amber Heard in 2022, the potential for social media to compromise juror impartiality is clear. During their trial, social media posts mocking Heard and backing Depp consumed social media.[3] For instance, a hashtag supporting Depp on TikTok garnered 20 billion views, while a hashtag supporting Heard received a mere 7.5 million.[4] The trial’s social media coverage generated real-world consequences, as fans gathered outside the courtroom each day to support Depp.[5]

There can be no doubt the culmination of these factors hampered the partiality of the Depp-Heard jury, regardless of whether jurors deliberately sought outside information as social media feeds that reinforce jurors’ thinking and core values operate subconsciously through confirmation bias.[6] Social media’s effect on juries is not limited to high-profile cases. In fact, a questionnaire of potential jurors revealed an alarming 46% of participants admitted they would search for a defendant on social media if they were serving on a jury.[7]

In addition, the parties themselves may offensively employ social media to influence jurors. In a recent case involving a car crash causing severe personal injuries, an Illinois appellate court overturned a $43 million verdict due to the trial court’s mishandling of prejudicial materials posted by plaintiff’s counsel during trial.[8] In that case, plaintiff’s counsel put out a blog-style post on their firm’s website and Facebook page titled “What Jurors Should Know But Don’t” on day two of the trial.[9] The post discussed the first trial between the parties, which also resulted in a $43 million verdict, and how this time they expect the jury to return a verdict closer to $100 million since the plaintiff’s condition has worsened.[10] Further, the post noted how jurors are not supposed to know these details, but argued readers should write their legislators and demand that jurors be told “the whole truth” in cases like these.[11] The court ultimately ruled the trial court abused their discretion by conducting an insufficient investigation into whether jurors had viewed the blog, but in dicta emphasized its intent to set a “clear precedent” that attempts by attorneys to communicate information to jurors through social media will not be tolerated.[12]

The good news is juror impartiality is not helpless in its fight against social media influence. While concerning in its own right, deliberate attempts to influence jurors like the blog in Kroft v. Viper Trans present clear responses of a mistrial and sanctions for attorneys.[13] Contrarily, preventing jurors from viewing media that contains outside information about the case and combatting social media’s impact on jurors’ implicit biases is a tall task. Model jury instructions like those promulgated by a federal judiciary committee[14] and admonitions to refrain from independent research about the case or the parties are inadequate, especially in high-profile cases where virtually any social media use bombards a juror with public opinion and misinformation.

Moreover, the only way to absolutely prevent juror exposure to these matters is jury sequestration, which does not account for any pre-trial influence on jurors and has proved impracticable due to high costs and logistical challenges.[15] Therefore, the onus falls chiefly on attorneys to protect the guarantee of an impartial jury against social media.

One potential tool is a supplemental jury questionnaire during voir dire, which could provide insight into a juror’s social media use and tendency to be swayed by public opinion, allowing counsel to prepare more meaningful questions.[16] Further, the sense of privacy and anonymity provided by a questionnaire would allow jurors to be more truthful and candid than they would be during live questioning.[17] Another potential instrument is expert testimony, particularly in high-profile cases, which can demonstrate how social media coverage can create and influence already existing implicit biases, allowing jurors to critically evaluate their own objectivity.[18] 

No matter what strategy is employed, it is imperative that attorneys are proactive in informing jurors of social media’s potential to compromise their impartiality; but refrain from overemphasis that dilutes the message or compels jurors to view social media because they become so intrigued by what they are missing.

[1] McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 554 (1984) (citing Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217 (1982)).

[2]  Ryan P. Deane & Jade N. Tran, Strategies for Overcoming Challenges Presented by the Impact of Social Media on Juries, WSHB (Feb. 6, 2025), https://www.wshblaw.com/news-strategies-for-overcoming-challenges-presented-by-the-impact-of-social-media-on-juries.

[3] Rebecca Melnitsky, Social Media Can Change Outcomes in the Courtroom, NYSBA (Oct. 24, 2023), https://nysba.org/social-media-can-change-outcomes-in-the-courtroom/?srsltid=AfmBOooJznXhkI8rkrkXh-sWYpnVvyouFNDJyt3o13EVyRsnDmhO5rrA.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] See Deane & Tran, supra note 2.

[7] Id.

[8] Kroft v. Viper Trans, Inc., 2025 IL App (1st) 240220, ¶ 58.

[9] Id. ¶ 11.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id. at ¶ 59.

[13] Kroft, 2025 IL App (1st) 240220.

[14] Jud. Conf. Comm. on Ct. Admin. And Case Mgmt., 116th Congress, Proposed Model Jury Instructions The Use of Electronic Technology to Learn or Communicate about a Case (June 2020).

[15] See Deane & Tran, supra note 2.  

[16] Jeffrey Kravitz, Addressing Social Media’s Impact on Jurors, Daily Journal (Oct. 15, 2024), https://www.dailyjournal.com/mcle/1536-addressing-social-media-s-influence-on-jurors.

[17] Id.

[18] Deane & Tran, supra note 2.