CourtTok: Strengthening future jurors or weakening our present ones?

It has been almost impossible for me to open TikTok this week without being exposed to at least one video mentioning a certain high-profile Massachusetts murder trial. Now, as a true crime buff training to practice in criminal defence law, this doesn’t shock me. What does shock me is the amount of people who have zero interest in either crime or the law suddenly striking up conversations with me about it. ‘CourtTok’ has taken over the algorithm, and this isn’t the first time we’ve seen it happen. Sure it’s a great conversation starter and without a doubt its addictive to follow, but could its popularity have a real impact on the future of judicial systems? 

Never have criminal proceedings, or any other legal tribulations for that matter, been so accessible. The days of simple, regulated TV news coverage and newspaper articles are long gone. Every day citizens have the luxury of opening their phones and watching the justice system unfold in practice, and in great detail at that. There may be no greater preparation available for them to understand their paramount civic duty for when it comes; sitting as a juror. If someone has immersed themselves in the trance that is CourtTok then they are sure to have learned something about the evidentiary rules and their purposes, the burden of proof and the general mechanisms of a Court room, all while being hooked on interesting facts of different cases. If every juror could approach the case before them with even slightest improvement of understanding and familiarity then perhaps trials could run smoother, verdicts could be reached with more certainty, and more faith could be put in the system. 

So, why should we be concerned about the growth of the CourtTok community if it poses advantages? Because at its core, the thing that boosts CourtTok and its presence is the one thing posing threat to the integrity of judiciaries; commentary. Jurors are advised from day one of a trial that they are deciders of facts, not law and should make decisions based only on the evidence presented to them. CourtTok encourages quite the opposite. Comment sections filled with prejudice and speculation, true-crime TikTok creators displaying emotional considerations and unjustified inference. If this were to become even more mainstream and normalised among most TikTok users, who make up a vast majority of regular citizens likely to sit on a jury, then discussion and judgment are awfully hard habits to break. Not only this, but if cases keep being shoved into the CourtTok hall of fame then it may be impossible for jurors to avoid reading about the cases they are involved in or to form premature opinions as the algorithm has forced it upon them. 

CourtTok creates a unique juxtaposition that has yet to be recognised by justice systems globally. Maybe as a typical law student my cynicism has gotten the better of me, or maybe we have reached a point in the age of social media that it has an undeniable infiltration on our legal awareness and understanding, for better or for worse.