"Jurors may be stricken for cause if it is revealed they are not able to be impartial. That might mean they posted on Facebook, “I hope they fry the SOB!” or memes that mirror that sentiment. "
Actually, using social media history to disqualify potential jurors is something which came out of Stone's trial.
Paraphrasing Robert Barnes, digging into a potential jurors' social media was considered going too far and the court would treat it as a fishing expedition to disqualify anyone impartial. When the defense in the Stone case mentioned after the verdict that the one juror's bias was known through social media and she had lied about it, the judge said "well why didn't you raise that during jury selection." That ruling is a green light to lawyers to research as much as they can about potential jurors.
Unless it's Roger Stone on trial, right?
Actually, using social media history to disqualify potential jurors is something which came out of Stone's trial.
Paraphrasing Robert Barnes, digging into a potential jurors' social media was considered going too far and the court would treat it as a fishing expedition to disqualify anyone impartial. When the defense in the Stone case mentioned after the verdict that the one juror's bias was known through social media and she had lied about it, the judge said "well why didn't you raise that during jury selection." That ruling is a green light to lawyers to research as much as they can about potential jurors.
Genuinely curious. What happens if you have social media but keep it private?