In the aftermath of the 2014 murder of esteemed law professor Dan Markel, a convoluted legal battle has unfolded, implicating Markel’s former in-laws in a murder-for-hire plot. Most recently, the spotlight has been on Donna Adelson, Markel's mother-in-law, who was convicted earlier this month for her role in orchestrating the murder. However, her attempt to secure a new trial based on claims of juror misconduct involving social media has been denied.

During the trial, it came to light that Juror No. 7 had posted on TikTok about being selected for jury duty. The post, which did not disclose any specifics about the trial itself, was brought up by Adelson's defense as a basis for appeal. The post read: “When I told God I needed a break, and he makes it so I am selected to serve on a jury for a two-week trial… won’t he do it,” accompanied by a light-hearted caption about enjoying a break from work and kids. This, Adelson's team argued, might have compromised the impartiality of the juror.

However, the judge ruled that the juror’s actions did not constitute misconduct. The judge pointed out that the post did not reveal any details about the nature of the case, the parties involved, or even the trial's location. As such, it was determined that the juror had not communicated "about this case," which would have been against jury instructions.

Further complaints from Adelson’s team included discussions about the trial by the juror on social media post-verdict, and another juror’s comments on a podcast regarding his observations of the defendant during the trial. These issues were also dismissed by the court, with explanations that jurors are permitted to discuss their experiences post-trial and that observing the demeanor of the defendant is a normal part of a juror's duty.

With these arguments set aside, the case now moves forward to sentencing, closing another chapter in this long and complex legal saga. The rejection of the bid for a new trial underscores the challenges in proving juror misconduct, especially in the age of social media where lines between public and private commentary are often blurred.