The use of social media in judicial trials has in recent past become a common phenomenon in the legal fraternity. For many years, judicial trials have relied on the conventional method of one way communication from courts to adjudicate legal cases. However, the developments of social media have brought about a shift in the adjudication of justice. The paper examines the factors which influence the use of social media among judges; and the opportunities and challenges confronted by judges in the use of social media. It uses a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, underpinned by bivariate and chi-square analysis,. It articulates that social media networking sites by far attract the younger generation of judges, making them an obvious target for maximizing the reach and impact of the judiciary. Judges who are inching closer to the retirement age in the judiciary engage less with social media as opposed to judges who are younger. Misrepresentation, misuse, security/privacy and bullying were found to be some of the challenges faced by judges in the use of social media. Social media was observed to speed up resolutions to cases, engage litigants, increase court efficiency and assist lawyers in tracking down individuals to be served.
AgnihotriR.DingusR.HuMYKrushMT. (2016) Social media: Influencing customer satisfaction in B2B sales. Industrial Marketing Management, 53:172–180.
2.
Angus-AndersonW. (2015) Authenticity and admissibility of social media website printouts. Duke Law and Technology Review, 14(1):33–47.
3.
AnwarT. (2020) Unfolding the past, proving the present: social media evidence in terrorism finance court cases. International Political Sociology, 1–17.
4.
AppelG.GrewalL.HadiR.StephenA.T., (2020). The future of social media in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(1):79–95. Available at: 10.1007/s11747-019-00695-1
5.
AstutikD.HarymawanINasihM. (2018) The effectiveness of social media and press release transparency to detect indications of financial fraud. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, 13(6):1507–1518.
BlitsaD.PapathanasiouISalmanliM. (2015) Judges and social media: managing the risks. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2634043
8.
BosherH.YeşiloğluS. (2019) An analysis of the fundamental tensions between copyright and social media: The legal implications of sharing images on Instagram. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 33(2):164–186.
9.
BoulianneS. (2019) Revolution in the making? Social media effects across the globe. Information Communication and Society, 22(1):39–54. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1353641
10.
BrownNABillingsAC. (2013) Sports fans as crisis communicators on social media websites. Public Relations Review, 39(1):74–81.
11.
BrowningJG. (2014) Why can’t we be friends? Judges’ use of social media. University of Miami Law Review, 68(2):487.
12.
CreswellJWCreswellJD. (2018) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc.
GibsonJ. (2016) Social media and electronic new world of judges. International Journal for Court Administration, 2(7): 1–9. Available at: http://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.199
17.
GibsonCB. (2017) Elaboration, generalization, triangulation, and interpretation: on enhancing the value of mixed method research. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2):193–223. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116639133
18.
GibsonJ. (2017) Social media and the electronic new world of judges. Revista Forumul Judecatorilor, p.26.
19.
GordonF. (2019) Preserving lifelong anonymity orders into adulthood: new challenges for the courts in the age of social media. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 41(4): 491–494. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2019.1663023
20.
HarbinjaE. (2016) Legal nature of emails: a comparative perspective. Duke Law and Technology Review, 14, p. 33.
21.
HousehM.BoryckiEKushnirukA. (2014) Empowering patients through social media: the benefits and challenges. Health Informatics Journal, 20(1):50–58.
22.
JohnstonJ. (2017) Courts’ use of social media: A community of practice model. International Journal of Communication, 11, 669–683.
23.
JuncoR. (2014). Engaging students through social media: Evidence-based practices for use in student affairs. John Wiley & Sons.
24.
KrejcieRVMorganDW. (1970) Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3):607–10
25.
Kutoglu KuruçUOpiyoB. (2019) Social media usage and activism by non-western budding PR professionals during crisis communication. Corporate Communications, 25(1):98–112. Availablehttps://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-07-2019-0082
MancaSRanieriM. (2017) Networked scholarship and motivations for social media use in scholarly communication. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(2):123–138.
28.
ManettiG.MarcoBLucaB. (2017) Stakeholder engagement and public information through social media: a study of Canadian and American public transportation agencies. The American Review of Public Administration47(8): 991–1009.
29.
MeyerJr, NH. (2014) Social media and the courts: innovative tools or dangerous fad-a practical guide for court administrators. International Journal Court Administration, 6, pp. 2.
30.
MuneneAMagaraI. (2019) The role of social media in Africa’s democratic transitions: lessons from Burundi. Democracy 2.0, pp. 109–125. Brill | Sense. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789463512305.007
31.
MullerK.SchwarzC. (2017) Fanning the flames of hate: social media and hate crime. SSRN Electronic Journal. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3082972
32.
MøllerMSOlafssonAS. (2018) The use of e-tools to engage citizens in urban green infrastructure governance: Where do we stand and where are we going?Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103513
33.
NathanS.NewmanCLancasterK. (2019) Qualitative interviewing. In Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences (pp. 391–410). Springer Singapore. Available athttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_77
PangNGohDPC. (2016) Are we all here for the same purpose? Social media and individualized collective action. Online Information Review, 40(4):544–559
36.
PerrinA. (2015) Social media usage. Pew Research Center, 52–68.
37.
PindayiB. (2017) Social media uses and effects: The case of Whatsapp in Africa. In Impacts of the Media on African Socio-Economic Development (pp. 34–51). IGI Global.
RadhakantADiskinM. (2013) How social media are transforming litigation. Litigation39 (2):17–22.
40.
RainerRK.PrinceB.WatsonHJ. (2014) Management Information Systems. Wiley Publishing.
41.
RampersadGAlthiyabiT. (2020) Fake news: Acceptance by demographics and culture on social media. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 17(1), 1–11. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2019.1686676
42.
SalazK.HodsonTDaveyCJ. (2012) New media and the courts: the current status and a look at the future. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1666332
43.
SharifMHM.TroshaniI.DavidsonR. (2015) Public sector adoption of social media. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 55(4):53–61.
44.
SharmaA.BhatnagarJ. (2016) Enterprise social media at work: web-based solutions for employee engagement. Human Resource Management International Digest, 24(7):16–18
45.
ShollEW. (2013) Exhibit Facebook: The discoverability and admissibility of social media evidence. Tulane Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property, 16, 207.
TabachnickBGFidellLS. (2014) Principal components and factor analysis - general purpose and description. In Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed., pp. 659–675). Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Retrieved fromhttp://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stfacan.html
48.
Teng, CE.and Joo, TM. (2017) Analyzing the usage of social media: A study on elderly in Malaysia. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. https://doi.org/1307-6892/100070
ValenzuelaS.ArriagadaASchermanA. (2012) The social media basis of youth protest behavior: The case of Chile. Journal of Communication, 62(2):299–314.
54.
WarrenAM.SulaimanAJaafarNI. (2015) Understanding civic engagement behaviour on Facebook from a social capital theory perspective. Behaviour and Information Technology, 34(2):163–175.
