This content is for informational and educational purposes only and is not legal, financial, or tax advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading or using this article. Federal, state, and local rules may differ and may change without notice. A qualified professional can review specific circumstances. The author and publisher assume no liability for actions taken based on this content.
Key Facts
- Federal level: The Code of Conduct for United States Judges prohibits ex parte communications and other outside communications about pending or impending matters made outside the parties’ presence.
- Federal level: The Code of Conduct for United States Judges prohibits public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.
- Federal level: U.S. Courts described an updated set of model jury instructions intended to deter jurors from using social media to research or communicate about cases.
- Federal level: Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) generally limits juror testimony about deliberations and mental processes, but allows testimony about extraneous prejudicial information and outside influence.
- Federal level: Remmer v. United States treats private communication or tampering with a juror during trial as presumptively prejudicial and places a heavy harmlessness burden on the government after notice and a hearing.
- Federal level: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 24(c)(3) requires courts to ensure a retained alternate does not discuss the case with anyone until the alternate replaces a juror or is discharged.
- State level: A California judicial ethics committee opinion concluded the answer to whether judges may include attorneys with pending matters before the judge in an online social networking site is no.
- State level: California courts’ juror brochure instructs that jurors may not search social media or the internet for information about the case and may not post about the case on social media or the internet.
Last reviewed: May 2026. Legal rules, forms, deadlines, and procedures can change by jurisdiction, agency, and court system.
- Why social media can matter in court
- A quick map of the authorities that address online conduct
- Federal judge ethics ex parte communications and public comment
- Federal jury focused safeguards for outside influence
- Model jury instruction updates aimed at jurors’ social media use
- Retained alternates and case discussion during trial
- After verdict what jurors can and cannot say in court under Rule 606(b)
- Remmer presumptive prejudice for private juror contact or tampering
- California examples state specific guidance for judges and jurors
- California judicial ethics and online social network interactions
- California juror brochure and restrictions on searching and posting
- Federal and state boundaries that readers often mix up
- Sources
Why social media can matter in court
Social media and other internet activity can create fairness and impartiality risks in jury trials because jurors can receive information or communications outside the courtroom record, and those outside inputs can affect how jurors view the case during deliberations.
A quick map of the authorities that address online conduct
Different sources address different parts of the court process. In federal court, ethical standards for judges, procedural juror timing limits, and evidentiary limits on juror testimony all interact with outside-communication concerns.
| Authority focus | Who it addresses | What it covers in the context of online conduct |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial conduct ethics policy | Federal judges | Prohibits ex parte communications and public comment on pending or impending matters |
| Model jury-instruction update (guidance) | Federal judges and jurors | Designed to deter jurors from using social media to research or communicate about cases |
| Federal criminal procedure rule | Jurors (retained alternates) | Restricts a retained alternate from discussing the case with anyone while that alternate remains in the alternate role |
| Federal evidence rule | Jurors after verdict | Limits juror testimony about deliberations, while allowing testimony about extraneous prejudicial information and outside influence |
| Supreme Court precedent | Jurors and court response | Treats private communication or tampering with a juror during trial as presumptively prejudicial |
| State guidance and opinions (California examples) | California judges and jurors | Addresses online social-networking interactions for judges and juror restrictions on searching/posting about cases |
Federal judge ethics ex parte communications and public comment
Federal judicial conduct standards include limits on how judges engage with information and people outside the courtroom process. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges says a judge should not “initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications” or other communications concerning a pending or impending matter made outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers.
The same Code also prohibits a judge from making public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending “in any court.” For broader context on how courts discuss new communication tools, see judges and new media.
Federal jury focused safeguards for outside influence
Model jury instruction updates aimed at jurors’ social media use
U.S. Courts described an updated set of model jury instructions intended to deter jurors from using social media to research or communicate about cases. The same summary warns about manipulation risks that can affect jurors’ opinions or impartiality through social media and internet-related “popups.”
Retained alternates and case discussion during trial
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 24(c)(3) requires the court to ensure that a retained alternate does not discuss the case with anyone until that alternate replaces a juror or is discharged.
After verdict what jurors can and cannot say in court under Rule 606(b)
Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) generally bars juror testimony about statements or incidents that occurred during jury deliberations and about jurors’ mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment, with limited exceptions.
Rule 606(b) allows juror testimony about whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention or whether an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror.
Remmer presumptive prejudice for private juror contact or tampering
Remmer v. United States addresses private communication, contact, or tampering with a juror during trial. The Supreme Court held that “any private communication, contact, or tampering” with a juror about the matter pending before the jury is presumptively prejudicial, and that “the burden rests heavily upon the Government” to establish harmlessness after notice and a hearing.
California examples state specific guidance for judges and jurors
Federal rules and ethics rules do not automatically control state-court processes, and states often provide their own juror instructions and ethics guidance. The following examples use only California materials.
California judicial ethics and online social network interactions
A California judicial ethics committee opinion (Opinion 66) addresses online social networking and concludes that the answer to question 3 is “no.” The issue concerns whether judges may include attorneys with pending matters before the judge in an online social networking site.
California juror brochure and restrictions on searching and posting
California courts’ juror guidance, “Navigating Social Media and the Internet for Jurors,” states that jurors are not allowed to search social media or the internet for information about the case and are not allowed to post about the case on social media or the internet.
Federal and state boundaries that readers often mix up
Social media and court-related policies can look similar across jurisdictions, but the controlling authority depends on what part of the system it addresses.
- Federal judicial conduct standards govern how federal judges handle outside communications and public commentary about pending or impending matters.
- Federal procedural and evidentiary rules govern key limits on juror participation and on what jurors may testify about after an issue arises.
- State court guidance and state ethics opinions can differ, and the California examples above should not be treated as a universal template for every state.
