We know that jurors like to talk about jury duty on social media, and we know that judges are taking more care to admonish them not to post about cases on Twitter or Facebook (even if the judges are not particularly aware of when it happens). Now, thanks to a case in California state appellate court, we're going to get some guidance on how far a court can go to discover just what a juror is telling his "friends" and "followers."

Next month, the Third Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal will hear oral arguments on whether a trial judge can compel a former juror to turn over Facebook entries he posted during the trial for review by the court.

It's a new twist on jurors and social media. This is how the Attorney General's office of California put it in a brief submitted to the state Supreme Court (where the case detoured before wending back to the intermediate appeals court): "The case involves the significant and novel issue of whether a trial court's power to investigate a claim of juror misconduct includes the power to compel an accused juror to forfeit the protections the juror would otherwise enjoy under the federal Stored Communications Act."

Here's the background: Following guilty verdicts in a multi-defendant assault trial in Sacramento County Superior Court, a juror contacted one of the defense attorneys, Keith Staten of The Law offices of Keith J. Staten and Associates, and informed him that another member of the jury -- identified in filings as Juror Number One -- had posted about the trial, while it was proceeding, on his Facebook page. The trial judge, Michael Kenny, then solicited testimony from several jurors, including Juror Number One. Juror Number One admitted that he described prosecution testimony about phone records as boring in a Facebook post, but said he otherwise only talked about how many days he'd been serving on jury duty. He did say, however, that he sometimes deleted entries -- and that he may have deleted some entries he'd made during the trial.

When defense lawyers heard that, they subpoenaed Facebook for Juror Number One's records, in the hopes that they'd provide a reason to vacate their clients' convictions. Kenny issued orders directing Facebook to produce the records or show cause. Facebook's lawyers at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe sought to quash the subpoeanas and to be relieved from the orders, arguing that the Stored Communications Act prevents it from divulging a user's account information communications.

The judge never ruled on the subpoenas, but in the meantime Facebook sent the juror his own records, including the deleted entries. Facebook also advised both Juror Number One and defense lawyers that the juror was free to consent to the release of the information. In fact, Facebook sent defense counsel a letter suggesting that the defendants try to get the information they'd subpoenaed from the juror instead of from Facebook. (Neither Facebook's counsel at Orrick nor Facebook responded to a request for comment.)

That's when the kerfuffle exploded into a constitutional showdown. On Feb. 4, 2011, the trial judge said Juror Number One had violated his instruction not to share information about the case, and ordered the juror to "execute a consent form ... allowing Facebook to supply the postings made by Juror #1 during trial." (Kenny did quash a defense subpoena demanding all of Juror Number One's Facebook posts as overbroad.)

Juror Number One, however, didn't want to give up his Facebook records. Represented by Kenneth Rosenfeld of The Rosenfeld Law Firm, he filed a petition in the Court of Appeal requesting an immediate stay. When that was denied, Rosenfeld appealed to the California Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued a stay, and in April 2011 directed the Appeal Court to decide the issue. The court set an argument date of March 23.

Juror Number One and the defendants who want his Facebook posts are all firmly convinced that the constitution is on their side. Rosenfeld argued that Kenny's order requiring Juror Number One to produce the records violates the Fourth Amendment's privacy guarantees and the Fifth Amendment's right to not self-incriminate. If his client is forced to turn over his posts, Rosenfeld, said, it could have a chilling effect on anyone who serves on a jury. "I think the issue is 'Can the government force a citizen to turn over information regarding their private lives and the private lives of their loved ones?'" Rosenfeld said.

The defendants' attorneys however, contend that the trial judge is properly guaranteeing their clients' Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. "Because the court has the right to investigate juror misconduct, we believe the court has the right to ask him to consent" to releasing his Facebook records, said Staten, whose client is facing a sentence of more than 30 years. If Juror Number One produces the records, Staten explained, Kenny would first review them in camera and redact any information unrelated to the case. (It only takes a quick glance at one's own Facebook page to realize how much information about not only you but others appears - mine today features a video of my niece, a classmate's party pictures and a screengrab of text messages sent by a friend's six-year-old son.)

Should Juror Number One lose in the Appeal Court, Rosenfeld said, he has every intention of heading back to the state Supreme Court, and all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. "My position has been very clear," he said. "The court is not getting these records. My client's privacy is significant ... and rights of the 800,000,000 users of Facebook are significant and need to be protected."

(Reporting by Erin Geiger Smith)